Tag Archives: aviation

November 26, 2025 · 06:48

When one domino falls

That is always the case, isn’t it? For completely unrelated settings, one tends to dump over the other one. It isn’t fair, it doesn’t always make sense, but there you have it and whilst several players reported on it, I was pushed into motion by the Army Recognition story giving us “Canada is reexamining its plan to buy 88 F-35A fighters after Sweden used a royal state visit to promote a Gripen E or F production and R&D hub in Canada. The debate now pits industrial and political incentives against warnings from former RCAF leaders that a mixed fleet could dilute combat power and strain a tight defense budget.” It comes from the article ‘Canada Reconsiders Full U.S. F-35A Fleet As Swedish Gripen-E Fighter Offer Gains Ground’ which we see (at https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2025/canada-reconsiders-full-us-f-35a-fleet-as-swedish-gripen-e-fighter-offer-gains-ground) it isn’t merely about Swedish precision (Hasselblad is a great example), but the American administration is rearing its ugly head in a few nasty ways. There was the massive setting on the Ukraine peace plan, which according to some (unreliable sources) was delivered in Russian on a napkin, then there is the Epstein files, which first never existed, then it was a Dem Socratic hoax and now (source: the guardian) ‘US justice department renews request to unseal Epstein grand jury materials’, so the DoJ had to renew its request? This happens with “The justice department has renewed its request to unseal grand jury materials from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation that led to the disgraced financier’s federal indictment on sex-trafficking charges in 2019.” And with the actions of Ambassador Pete Hoekstra  actions in Canada. These matters all influence what is happening and with ‘Hoekstra hints F-35 deal could impact stalled U.S.-Canada trade talks’ (source: CBC) the Canadians have had enough and with the lingering ‘51st state’ comments from all over the place (mostly from America)  the entire setting of $20.2 billion is about to be thrown out of the window. And would you know it, the Gripen is cheaper, has a better Arctic track record (it tends to get really cold in Calgary and Winnipeg) and it is NON-AMERICAN and whilst PM Carney is making deals all over the globe and the 2 deals with the UAE and India setting the investment score for Canada at 125 billion. That is money not going to America, merely Canada and now they also lose out on 20 billion to their defense industry. Loss upon loss upon loss. How long can America pretend that it was no big deal? 

So while we read “Canada’s fighter replacement program, long anchored on an order for 88 F-35A Lightning II jets under the Future Fighter Capability Project, has entered a new and politically charged phase, as reported by Newsweek. During a state visit to Ottawa by King Carl XVI Gustaf, Swedish officials and Saab executives pressed a structured proposal to meet part of Canada’s requirement with Gripen E or F aircraft assembled in the country, tied to sizable job-creation and technology transfer promises. According to those familiar with the discussions, the idea of a dual fleet is now being floated just as former Royal Canadian Air Force officers publicly urge Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government not to trim the F-35 buy or introduce a second fighter type that would require separate training, infrastructure, and logistics.” This makes me wonder the ‘financial position’ of these FORMER officers. Wouldn’t ask that question? I am also wondering why they became former officers, but that is me because I do not know these people and I question everything. I reckon that Lockheed Martin might be worried when they lose 20 billion, making the deal with Saudi Arabia almost essential to make a living (an exaggeration for sure).

But the story from the Canadian side is whether the Gripen can uphold keeping the Canadian air-force competitive enough over Canadian sky. I tend to think yes, but then I am not a pilot and I never flown a jet, I merely watched Tom Cruise do so. My biggest flight setting was using the bar on a jet from Amsterdam of JFK international, so there, not entirely a noob. ;-P

And as Defence Industry Europe gives us ‘Canada considers shifting F-35 order toward Sweden’s Gripen as Ottawa reviews jet procurement’ (at https://defence-industry.eu/canada-considers-shifting-f-35-order-toward-swedens-gripen-as-ottawa-reviews-jet-procurement/) with “Canada has already selected the F-35A to renew its Royal Canadian Air Force fleet and has committed to buying 88 aircraft to replace its Boeing F/A-18 Hornets. Ottawa has allocated funds for 16 F-35s now being built in Fort Worth, Texas, but the remainder of the order appears uncertain amid worsening relations between Canada and the Trump administration”, so Lockheed Martin won’t lose all the dineros, but a large amount is seemingly move towards Sweden and as I see it, Sweden now needs to properly fund two Christmas baskets (nuts that time again). One for President Trump and one for Ambassador Pete Hoekstra for making this possible, expected Hamper shown below.

You see, this all seems clear cut, but I am wondering what this domino will throw over, because that is almost certain happening, especially with the American Ambassador throwing his accusations in the air. He might be claiming that Canadians are meddling in American politics, but they started the ‘51st state’ claims and the next Canadian step might be even less nice, Canada now have options especially when they are gaining so much ground in revenue, investments and manufacturing options (aka jobs). All these parts never involved America (other than making them no longer part of any equation), so what is next? I see options in possible ammunition replacements for the entire Defense industry. Jets and ships might make the news for the larger amounts, but the steady stream of revenue that ammunition brings could also fall to other places (like the UK), so what will that cost America?

Have a great day, I am now 83 minutes removed from the upcoming breakfast and there is a subtle hint hidden in that part too.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 30, 2025 · 00:06

Adjustments

We all have them, we all make them, throughout our lives, throughout our careers and I am no different. For me two are essential, one out of my control, one less so. So as I have written 3,650 articles I have adjusted myself a few times. I do not hold ‘evidence’ in possession. Like you I am largely depending on the media giving us the truth, preferably presenting the news without referring to it as ‘entertainment’, I reckon they do this to make themselves less liable and hide behind their own (can I call this) stupidity. Over the decades (and 3650 articles) I have grown a certain healthy dislike to Microsoft. They largely did this to themselves, they lack innovation, they employ whatever spin engine they can get a hold of and that is merely the beginning. I had a few encounters with them (largely professionally) and from that a certain view was grown. But I too have to adjust myself. In gaming my first encounter with Microsoft was 1985 (or there about). I had just bought my Commodore 64 (with 1541 disk drive) and it set me back $1,500 which was a lot of money in 1985. One of the first things I bought was the Flight Simulator 2 for $149. It came with a massive manual and 4 maps and one 360KB floppy.

This is what I saw in the first instance (I had no screenshot of Chicago) and it was amazing. A almost setting of high tech fly by wire on a CBM64 and Microsoft made it possible for only $149. Now, of course my view is adjusted (a lot) and it does not have the pull and appeal it had in 1985. But the ‘magic’ was there. And Microsoft didn’t stop there. Almost a week ago I saw (at https://youtube.com/shorts/Aw22TS573Jo?si=NrKuT1pzmLrQm3OQ), I actually saw another landing but the gist of it is clear. They came a long way from 1985 and at present (as I see it) the difference between real life and the FS2024 is close to zero. Yes you can see certain ‘irregularities’ when getting over the houses around LAX, but I was just amazed how close to real it was. 

Now, I get that the opinion of a real pilot and a real fan of flight simulators might have an opinion that is different from me, but I am not a pilot and I reckon that my opinion does not carry any weight (it really does not), but when you consider that this program is now $129 you get 40 years of evolution and pay $20 less. And I say that this is almost as good as it gets (flying for real might be better). 

This is one Microsoft actually got right and that needs to be said too. OK, I get that some will say that the Microsoft tally system (Excel) is a good product as well, I do not deny this, I merely think that too many think it is the bees knees and that is a slight exaggeration.

But there is no denying that the FS2024 is for a lack of better terms the Apex predator of Flight simulators. There is no requirement to adjust my views here. They got that right and it shows from the very first moment that this product is shown. So whilst the actual Microsoft haters will call this a rubbish version. I am not one of them. I saw several YouTube videos and the setting is clear. There is no competition against the FS2024. I reckon that the pentagon will not be able to throw any simulator our way (optionally merely with military vehicles, know as jets) to show that they are better then whatever Microsoft has to offer, they will fail. 

I am not a simulator fan, as far as I know I never was any good at it, but that doesn’t matter. The options we see now outstrips whatever they had in 1985 and as far as I could tell, it is mere millimeters from the actual experience of flying, some reporter dude named Clark Kent says I am making over the top statements, but this is where I stand and in light of what is about to come I had the cleanse the pallet. So have a great day as I am now crossing into Thursday, 3 hours behind Wellington. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

November 12, 2024 · 18:28

Short of brain, short of memory

As I see it, Georgina Rannard from the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2lvq4el5vo) needs a little education. It started my (somewhat) raging nature when I saw ‘Ultra-rich using jets like taxis, climate scientists warn’ I was ‘set off’ in a light of day that is somewhat darker then blue. You see there are around 24,270 private jets, two thirds are registered in the US and many of them, are corporate jets. You know these ‘scoundrels’ employed by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM and alike. There is a fair amount of jets used by the ‘ultra-rich’ but the the numbers fade in to the corporate world. And she gets assistance from Prof Gossling (not the brightest professor in the land). I feel repetitive, as I wrote on December 10th 2020 in the article (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) where I wrote ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’, where Tim McGrath made equally mindless accusations. As I see it in 4 years they didn’t learn anything, they just used a new vessel to spout there nonsense. You see, the fallback in 2023, the 13th to be exact. I wrote ‘The Guardian just won’t learn’ I added a few details there, details that was available to the press for obvious reasons. There I wrote “ignoring the fact that over 15 years 41,000 flights a day have been added and we do not get to see how much pollution that brings” each year 1,000,000 were added bringing to the total of 41,000 flights a day, every day. At this time (as far as I was able to check) was the fact that per 2021 there were 151,435 daily flights in the air. All whilst in 2019 there were 106,849 flights. I think that the stupidity of Georgina Rannard and Prof Gossling is clearly shown here. In addition to this is the fact that these jet are a lot more fuel efficient. It is just another example where leftist idiots put a little more blame on the ‘ultra-rich’ and I have no hidden agenda. I will never be ultra-rich, I have no intent to being ultra rich. Just rich would do, rich enough to have a nice place to live in and a nice retirement, but I reckon I am no different than 80% of us who all share that same wish.

As such I have questions, how was this “The 46% increase in emissions by private jets is probably due to rising demand and the limitations on commercial travel caused by the Covid pandemic” determined? The 15,000,000 flights from 1995-2010 would diminish these numbers. The other side is that the ultra rich would not fly them all the time, so where did these two dodo’s get the numbers? Then we get “The group is estimated to comprise about 256,000 people, 0.003% of the global adult population, each owning an average of $123m (£95m), according to the scientists.” So are they all sharing the 24,270 private jets? Then we get “One travelled by private jet 169 times in 2023, emitting an estimated 2,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide – the equivalent of driving 571 petrol cars throughout the year.” So who was that? Was that a Google (or Microsoft or Shell) plane transporting staff members? There is an amount of data (possibly fictive) that we are exposed to, and one case in 24,270? How random is that? As such we get the statement “The scientists chose not to name individuals, making clear they did not wish to point the finger at any one person.” Makes sense, but it also makes there data debatable. Because if there was clear evidence (like a thousand planes) we would get a really nice sentiment. And in response to this, I get back to the previous article ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ from 2020 where we see that 50% of the environmental damage came from 147 facilities in Europe. 

The EEA report (also in that document) gives a clear perspective, as such are Georgina Rannard and Prof Gossling anything else but a joke? The EEA gave us a clear report that 147 facilities were responsible for 50% of the damage, so why aren’t the BBC and the Guardian digging into that? They had the report for over 4 years. The media had that report and decided to ignore the report. So how blatantly stupid (and optionally corrupt) are they? A simple question and it gets worse from there. How many empty planes are flying? You see 41,000 implies well over 100,000 people. How many non-tourists are flying? I was in a plane from Amsterdam international to Budapest (Hungary) and we had a 767 plane to ourselves. Less than 25 people were in that flight. How much damage was caused? I reckon that at least 10% of the flights could be cancelled. But then we get economic issues like reserved (but unused) seats come into play and that is the larger extent. You can’t have it both ways. And I think the BBC knows that. 

Sorry for the rant, but these leftists accusing dodo’s get the hairs in the back of my neck up and there is enough evidence to do just that at present. Enjoy your day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 27, 2013 · 20:53

Opportunities to lower spending

The Dutch have a new observation drone. It is called the Scan Eagle (by Boeing). Unlike the Raven, this little pretty pretty can fly at 1000 meters for 17 hours and is able to observe and find those who they need to find. Even though some are now overly screaming privacy, it is not about those people. This Super Drone as Gerard Schouw from D66 (Dutch Democratic Party) called it. It needs legislation. Who will it observe? For which purposes will it be used? Where is the data stored? There are no answers at this point. To some extent this part surprised me. The Belgium police had been working with camera mounted helicopters for a while (DSAS). They have been doing this for almost 10 years. The Dutch were not? These questions have never been raised before? Nope, Mr Schouw seems to be correct (not that his statement was ever in doubt). Even though as was observed by others that section 3 of the Dutch Police act gives them leeway to use this solution, with these current levels of assumed invasion of privacy, legal questions would and should be asked. (Thanks to blog by Rejo Zenger at www.rejo.zenger.nl)

Yet, is this just about this observation drone, or just about privacy laws? We see a massive growth in the deployment of drones, some with weapon capacity. What are the real issues? The Dutch like many other nations have CCTV, they have helicopters that could observe and with the eye on admissible evidence in case of prosecutions, the idea that the issues of digital image capturing has not been a legal issue before is slightly puzzling to me at present.

No matter how we see these drones. They are not toys and these devices have a clear need. It does not initially matter whether we are dealing with an armed version, or a mere observation version of the drone. The idea that nations have an effective air force without the need to endanger troops is more than just appealing. In addition, in an age where we MUST lower costs, where a predator costs under 5 million and the average fighter jet is almost 1000% the cost of a predator, can we even consider NOT implementing such options? An option that will keep pilots safe, and in addition offer a solution where extensive costs of training fall largely away. How can this solution be a bad thing to consider? Questions will remain, no doubt and we will always need pilots and actual planes, even if it is to get goods and support systems into place. This little pretty pretty can easily be launched from a small launcher and does not need the infrastructure the Global Hawk needs, making it very versatile and could be a great additional asset to non-military support needs.

My first thought was to take these Scan Eagles, add Israeli FLIR technology and the result could be a first actual effective line of defence that South Africa needs to hunt down Ivory poachers. Especially considering the current dangers to the elephant population and their almost assured future of extinction.

The issue of privacy laws remain as Dutch politician Gerard Schouw observed. That need should actually be considered on a European scale. If these drones are making headway, then exploring the laws and rules of observer drones and the current privacy laws then we see the need to address it from both Civil and Common law views. If we can believe last month’s news, then these issues are very much in play in Germany too. Even though they are now dealing with the issue of US drone strikes as these drones seem to have been operated from Germany, issues on privacy laws as observation drones are operated in other countries will be food for legislation in more than just equal measure, especially as several European defence forces are now in talks/finalising stages for acquiring drone technologies.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,