Oh look every USAF Trainee pilots favorite easy to hit target the Rafale Frog . You would be advised to butter up Boeing or Saab. Saab just landed the Brazil AF contract. I'd trust my life a pilot to Saab anyway, the Grippen has more test and extensive Arctic test and duty then the Frog of the French we surrender AF. If you really want a bad arse fighter, Go Sukhoi. That'll drive us nuts in the US
"BartSimpson" said Sure, go ahead and buy some specialized fighter that can't use US parts or be refueled by our tankers. Yep, that makes loads of sense.
Rafale uses the standard probe and drogue system, same as almost everyone in NATO including the US.
"saturn_656" said Sure, go ahead and buy some specialized fighter that can't use US parts or be refueled by our tankers. Yep, that makes loads of sense.
Rafale uses the standard probe and drogue system, same as almost everyone in NATO including the US.
I was just today asking about this with a USAF KC135 crew at Lackland. They say no dice refueling a French Rafale with US Tanker fleet. They call them snail-bus sucker's lol. France is intent on marketing there Airbus Tanker with the Rafale and that isnt being told and what turned off Brazil and many other's from the Rafale. Heavy cost heavy cost and training. Just ask the USN direct for Super Hornets, which will save your tax payer's major mula. If you don't get it you know Obama is your enemy and a communist.
I no longer have a dog in this fight so I really don't give a shit which fighter plane shows up on a ramp near me. But...........
A long time ago we had the Dassault Falcon which was a sweet little business jet. They were fast, comfortable and fun to bomb around the country in. However, from the technician's point of view, it was a nightmare to work on as it had a mix of standard and metric fasteners. While we didn't care back then, there is significant cost in outfitting tool kits with two sets of wrenches and sockets. If you are an AME, then you know the variety of wrenches and sockets required.
If that process is normal, Page said, then it's "broken. Completely broken. And wrong."
Officials gave one estimate to cabinet, he said, that included the full costs of the plane for the complete lifespan, but gave another estimate to MPs.
"To tell Parliament, effectively, to tell Canadians, that, well, actually it's a much smaller number, that's wrong," Page said.
Earlier in the day, Page testified at a committee that National Defence withheld information when he was preparing his controversial report on the costs of the F-35s, and he later indicated he thinks Canadians were misled about the true costs of buying the fighter jets.
Auditor General Michael Ferguson released a scathing report on April 3 that was highly critical of the way the F-35 file had been handled, particularly the Defence Department's failure to reveal that the fighter would cost Canada at least $25 billion — $10 billion more than it was reporting to Parliament and the public weeks before the last federal election.
The Conservative government has admitted it was aware of the larger price tag weeks before the last federal election, but MacKay's comments are the first acknowledgment cabinet approved the reporting of a lower figure to Canadians.
Dassault: We'll provide full tech transfer!
SAAB: We'll start a production line for the Gripen in Canada!
Boeing: Lockheed couldn't get a drunk to the pub on time. Go Hornet!
Lockheed: Stealth dude. Stealth.
Various manufacturers sales pitches, condensed of course.
Dassault: We'll provide full tech transfer!
SAAB: We'll start a production line for the Gripen in Canada!
Boeing: Lockheed couldn't get a drunk to the pub on time. Go Hornet!
Lockheed: Stealth dude. Stealth.
Was going to +rep you, but it says I need to spread the love.
Various manufacturers sales pitches, condensed of course.
Dassault: We'll provide full tech transfer!
SAAB: We'll start a production line for the Gripen in Canada!
Boeing: Lockheed couldn't get a drunk to the pub on time. Go Hornet!
Lockheed: Stealth dude. Stealth.
Was going to +rep you, but it says I need to spread the love.
Got you covered! I thought it was a great post too.
Sure, go ahead and buy some specialized fighter that can't use US parts or be refueled by our tankers. Yep, that makes loads of sense.
Rafale uses the standard probe and drogue system, same as almost everyone in NATO including the US.
Sure, go ahead and buy some specialized fighter that can't use US parts or be refueled by our tankers. Yep, that makes loads of sense.
Rafale uses the standard probe and drogue system, same as almost everyone in NATO including the US.
I was just today asking about this with a USAF KC135 crew at Lackland. They say no dice refueling a French Rafale with US Tanker fleet. They call them snail-bus sucker's lol. France is intent on marketing there Airbus Tanker with the Rafale and that isnt being told and what turned off Brazil and many other's from the Rafale. Heavy cost heavy cost and training. Just ask the USN direct for Super Hornets, which will save your tax payer's major mula. If you don't get it you know Obama is your enemy and a communist.
They say no dice refueling a French Rafale with US Tanker fleet.
A long time ago we had the Dassault Falcon which was a sweet little business jet. They were fast, comfortable and fun to bomb around the country in. However, from the technician's point of view, it was a nightmare to work on as it had a mix of standard and metric fasteners. While we didn't care back then, there is significant cost in outfitting tool kits with two sets of wrenches and sockets. If you are an AME, then you know the variety of wrenches and sockets required.
If you really want a bad arse fighter, Go Sukhoi. That'll drive us nuts in the US
Su-35 or T-50?
Interesting little read about the T-50:
Why is Norway Estimating $40 Billion for 52 F-35s While Canada Says 65 F-35s Cost Around $14 Billion?
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/11/ ... 4-billion/
If that process is normal, Page said, then it's "broken. Completely broken. And wrong."
Officials gave one estimate to cabinet, he said, that included the full costs of the plane for the complete lifespan, but gave another estimate to MPs.
"To tell Parliament, effectively, to tell Canadians, that, well, actually it's a much smaller number, that's wrong," Page said.
Earlier in the day, Page testified at a committee that National Defence withheld information when he was preparing his controversial report on the costs of the F-35s, and he later indicated he thinks Canadians were misled about the true costs of buying the fighter jets.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ittee.html
Auditor General Michael Ferguson released a scathing report on April 3 that was highly critical of the way the F-35 file had been handled, particularly the Defence Department's failure to reveal that the fighter would cost Canada at least $25 billion — $10 billion more than it was reporting to Parliament and the public weeks before the last federal election.
The Conservative government has admitted it was aware of the larger price tag weeks before the last federal election, but MacKay's comments are the first acknowledgment cabinet approved the reporting of a lower figure to Canadians.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ittee.html