Front page coverage from Eric too
https://meincmagazine.com/space/2026/...aircraft-just-did-a-belly-landing-in-houston/
https://meincmagazine.com/space/2026/...aircraft-just-did-a-belly-landing-in-houston/
The Aerospace Industry Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Bad Monkey!
- Start date
Ouch. 
Those WB-57's are old, old, old birds.
Mostly about Boeing earnings:
https://leehamnews.com/2026/01/27/b...-on-services-division-bca-still-losing-money/
I hadn't seen this reported elsewhere, but there's finally a 737 MAX engine cowling issue permanent fix approved?
Lots of other bits in there to unpack.
Those WB-57's are old, old, old birds.Mostly about Boeing earnings:
https://leehamnews.com/2026/01/27/b...-on-services-division-bca-still-losing-money/
I hadn't seen this reported elsewhere, but there's finally a 737 MAX engine cowling issue permanent fix approved?
Lots of other bits in there to unpack.
I listened to the audio on vas on youtube, and all the audio was entirely normal as the pilot seemed to be doing pattern work at the airport, never an indication of an issue. The final call-in to tower was for a touch and go, and the pilot indicated gear down (just as he had on the prior approaches), but maybe that was muscle memory and not verified or maybe the gear actually indicated down.
Sounds like Canada is reconsidering their F-35 order, potentially going with Gripen/Globaleye instead. US is upset.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NML-xHCKWeg
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NML-xHCKWeg
Seems prudent. I wonder how many Globaleye's Saab is going to sell since the US attempted pivot away from E-7 Wedgetail.
The number I've heard reported is they're pitching 6. Which seems an appropriate number - station 3 each at Cold Lake & Bagotville and you can have one in the air pretty much all the time. I've thought for a long time that GlobalEye was a no-brainer for Canada especially since it's built on a Canadian-made aircraft (Bombardier Global 6500).
https://www.airwaysmag.com/new-post/fedex-may-31-return-its-md-11-freighters
FedEx hoping to return their MD-11 fleet to service by May 31 this year.
FedEx hoping to return their MD-11 fleet to service by May 31 this year.
There has also been talk about that potential assembly line being used to make Gripens for Ukraine as well.
Unfortunately, Canada has so completely botched replacing the CF-18s, that there aren't any great options, even before accounting for a now unreliable, if not hostile, US. F-35s are expensive to buy and operate and are overkill for patrolling our own airspace, but better suited for a potential future war with Russia (assuming they rebuild and attack in a decade or two), or someone else. Gripens are better suited to operating in more austere northern airstrips, but are still subject to the US (the engine is still American), are still single engine aircraft. Buying both would be ideal, though I'm not sure how far we are prepared, or able to, to go with increasing military spending. We are increasing spending, but in Canada we have been pretty bad with talking up our military history and then strangling our current forces financially. This might be better suited to discussion in the Soapbox though.
All y'all could have had a great native defense industry if not for politics. (Avro had some very good engineers)
If the Canadians wanted dual engines and US independence, then wouldn’t the Rafale have been a better choice than the Gripen?
Both the Rafale and Eurofighter were withdrawn from the competition due to security concerns related to NORAD interoperability requirements. The only twin engine option left at the time was the Super Hornet and it wasn’t going to happen due to the spat over tariffs being placed on the then Bombardier C Series at the request of Boeing.
https://www.defensenews.com/industr...thdraws-from-canadas-fighter-jet-competition/
KF-21s should be coming online this year, though they are a hot commodity and I would expect them to be production constrained.
That is an interesting choice now. Would be interesting to know how well it compares to the Gripen in particular. The EW abilities of the Gripen, for example, are often talked up as partially offsetting the lack of stealth.
So can Lockheed Martin pressure Trump on possible loss of F-35 sales?
Or do they go after Republican Senators and Representatives to try to pressure the administration?
Or do they go after Republican Senators and Representatives to try to pressure the administration?
Link 16 compatible, NATO IFF, NATO and EU weapons compatibility, Super Hornet engines built by Hanwha in Korea.
Why the emphasis on multi-engine if they were looking at Fat Amy? On a side note, the F-16 has been a pretty reliable single engine lightweight multi-role aircraft and do they fly out in desolate northern Canada where an engine loss is dire?
Gripen is far more well suited to unimproved/short runways and minimally equipped/inexpensive local support. More discussion/details in these articles:
https://simpleflying.com/jas-39-gripen-vs-f-16-fighting-falcon-how-do-multirole-fighters-compare/
https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/comparative-analysis-saab-gripen-e-f-vs-f-16-block-70-72/
Regarding the engine comment some posts back - it appears that while the new RM16 Gripen E/F engine is based on a General Electric/US design, the engines are being built by GKN Aerospace Sweden, just like the earlier RM12 engine for Gripen C/D.
The RCAF did have a preference for a twin engine design as they do operate over Northern Canada, including out of Inuvik and Iqualuit. For NORAD missions in the Western Arctic, as an example, there isn't much of anything between CFB Cold Lake and the Arctic Ocean. To get all the fancy new toys and features of a modern fifth gen fighter, however, the only option is the F-35. And the only twin engine designs at the time the selection was being made were either withdrawn as noted above, or ruled out due to politics (the Super Hornet).
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-fighter-jets-intercept-russian-bombers-in-arctic-1.2772440
Based on the recent Hornet Extension Program, it looks like Canada intends to keep flying the CF-18 at least through 2032. It would make sense to me if the HEP Phase II planes were retained even longer for Arctic service since they were upgraded over the past few years.
Thanks. So the F-35 had enough new toys that they were willing to chance a single engine design. Now it makes more sense.
That would work, but still runs into the issue of running two fleets of fighters, which I'm not sure we're prepared to pay for yet.
I think the F-35 has won every fighter procurement competition it has been in for a reason. Beyond the stealth, the sensors and sensor fusion put it out front of basically everything else available outside the US, hence everyone that has the option to buy it, has done so.
There is also the economic side as well for Canada as we bought into the program way back when the project was getting going so Canadian companies could bid on contracts for the aircraft. Not sure what the latest economic numbers actually are, though Lockheed has some claims on the site below.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-ca/features/the-f35-industrial-impact.html
I know one of the Israeli pilots said as soon as he had the gear up, he knew where everything was in a 350 mile radius. Probably a bit of hyperbole on his part, but the sensor suite is certainly a game changer for single pilot workloads.
I presume the ~60 non-HEP-II CF-18 would be taken out of service, replaced by the proposed 72 Gripens for a modest increase in total fighter count. Gripen maintenance should be less expensive than F-35 and more of the supply chain would be inside Canada. That would also mean a pretty large CF-18 "boneyard" for legacy parts support of the remaining ~36 fully upgraded CF-18.
After that? Maybe replace the remaining CF-18 with a twin-engine 6th gen fighter like the Tempest. Or give in to single engine even for Arctic/remote flight areas with the upcoming Saab Flygsystem 2020
The F-35 definitely will be significantly better than Gripen for that aspect.
Presuming the US doesn't remotely lock you out of ALIS/ODIN connectivity on a whim, of course. "Technically" not a kill switch, but effectively the same thing.
If I were running F-35 procurement for Canada, the only way I would even consider F-35 deliveries today is a deal like Israel managed. They provide their own independent software/cloud support instead of relying on US servers. Avoiding SB territory here, but the risks of relying on US servers should be super obvious.
It's possible that flirting with Gripen is designed to get the US to offer independence from ALIS/ODIN like Israel.
Another factor is that engine reliability has steadily improved over the years, making decision-makers a little more lenient on the two engine requirement. I remember reading quotes from the RCAF to that effect years ago.
I don't think I ever saw an answer, but I have wondered why they didn't select the US Navy version of the F-35 with it's larger fuel capacity & range (the larger wings that enabled this also I believe slowed it down with the extra drag, so maybe that was it).
The Navy version would probably work better out of short, rough fields than the A model if they don't want the added complexity of the B model.
At the moment we're still committed to the initial batch of 16 F-35s, with the question being more about how many of the remaining options we go for and what we buy as an alternative if we do cut back. Cutting a deal like Israel for the F-35 would be ideal, though I'm not sure how willing the US would be (at least with the current admin).
There was little benefit for the carrier model, we've got tankers on the way with booms for aerial refuelling, the A model has an internal gun, and we're also adding the drag chute that Norway has for their A models. Just cheaper to go with the most common model with the extra features that have already been developed.
Norway had a drag chute added to their A models for shorter and icier runways, which Canada is also getting.
My understanding is that takeoffs aren't as much of a concern as the landings. At worst they could takeoff with a lighter fuel load and refuel in the air. Stopping on an icy runway, no matter how long, is a much bigger issue. Not sure the tradeoffs are worth the one or two advantages for the C model.
The only problem that occurs to me with take off on a slick runway would be if shit went sideways and you didn't have good braking action to stop in an abort situation before binning it off the runway.
I was originally going by the comment earlier about the short or rough runways. That has since been clarified.