Army Guy Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 Is this the same airforce with a whole bunch of pilots, and a 300 billion defence program for new manned aircrafts?Sadly this is because the US UCAV proposed didn't utilize AI, it utilized drone systems - this is because a drone system is not as efficient as an AI system. The US airforce doesn't want their most leathal technologies controlled by programmers. They want them controlled by airforce personnel. This has nothing to do with technological superiority, it has to do with politics within the military, and loss of military control to a small group of people. This trend in techology would all but eliminate US air superiority on a basis of trained flight personnel and remove the air force and replace it with technicians, not pilots. It is the same Airforce, the same ones that have said that the F-35 may infact be the last manned fighter they will produce. And while they have sunk alot of funding into drones, it was a critical step perhaps the first step into future UCAV designs... All that being said i don't think AI tech has reached a level of maturity to fly a fighter fully armed just yet, or we would have seen it already...the US navy has the X-45 and is testing it on operational Aircraft carriers. but it is in a drone state currently.... Regardless of politics within the military , the one thing that is for sure is the government controls the entire military, and the government is very concerned with money, money drives everything they do....introducing AI tech that can or could do the job would result in massive savings....enough for the government to over ride the Airforces concerns....But AI was just one of the techs you quoted on others were replacing fossil based fuels, and new methods of Data control....these 2 alone would gain approval of the government and Airforce alike, imagine a fighter that has no range, and could stay airbourne until maintaince is required, or rearming....Fuel is one of those massive logistics problems that drive entire conflicts...and to eliminate that would give any military a huge advantage on the battlefield....be it on the ground , air, or sea....future aircraft, vehs, and ships, could carry more muntions and wpns sys....No i think if this tech was here they would have openly announced it, and like i said it would have revolutionized modern warfare. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
GWiz Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 It is the same Airforce, the same ones that have said that the F-35 may infact be the last manned fighter they will produce. And while they have sunk alot of funding into drones, it was a critical step perhaps the first step into future UCAV designs... All that being said i don't think AI tech has reached a level of maturity to fly a fighter fully armed just yet, or we would have seen it already...the US navy has the X-45 and is testing it on operational Aircraft carriers. but it is in a drone state currently.... Regardless of politics within the military , the one thing that is for sure is the government controls the entire military, and the government is very concerned with money, money drives everything they do....introducing AI tech that can or could do the job would result in massive savings....enough for the government to over ride the Airforces concerns....But AI was just one of the techs you quoted on others were replacing fossil based fuels, and new methods of Data control....these 2 alone would gain approval of the government and Airforce alike, imagine a fighter that has no range, and could stay airbourne until maintaince is required, or rearming....Fuel is one of those massive logistics problems that drive entire conflicts...and to eliminate that would give any military a huge advantage on the battlefield....be it on the ground , air, or sea....future aircraft, vehs, and ships, could carry more muntions and wpns sys....No i think if this tech was here they would have openly announced it, and like i said it would have revolutionized modern warfare. You say; "I'm listening, teach me", do you you mean it? If you do, and that goes for Wild Bill and others too, I'm willing to try... Let's take a 25 year time frame from 2000 to 2025 as it relates to both life and this thread... Tech changes during the first 10 years (history) we all know about... GPS - Today ordinary citizens can get a multi satellite guided GPS that will tell them where they are anywhere in the world within a few meters/yards for under $200.00... Unheard of 10 years ago (except maybe for VERY EXPENSIVE military use)... A computer on your cellphone or other mobile hand held device that will fit into a pocket or purse available to the general public for around $200.00 to $600.00 - A dozen manufacturers, including a Canadian Co., are making ever more powerful devices that can "touch" people anywhere in the world and that are more powerful, and more useful and user friendly, than most Desktop Computers were 10 years ago... Satellite Radio, Satellite Phones, etc. - Mass Communication via orbiting Satellites including Tech that lets our Military personnel freely communicate with loved ones "at home" while serving "in theater" overseas... 10 years ago perhaps in it's infancy where our Military would "line up" for a 1 min. message to home... Today via apps. like skype any laptop can communicate freely via satellite, can offer 2 way video and voice, for media outlets and any other individual... Available to the general public a methodoly that would 10 years ago have been "top secret" at best... Remote controlled Aircraft available today at any hobby shop that are so advanced in control and performance that they would have been classified "top secret" for strictly Military application 10 years ago... Add to that "Flight Simulators" for use with a joystick and a computer that would have been the most advanced system (probably even better) in flight training just 10 years ago... UAV - While the basic technology has been around a long time, since 2000 in Military application it has evolved tremendously from simple reconnaisence to a very powerful assault weapon capable of "visual and controllable" (as opposed to a cruise missile which is not) precision strikes far behind enemy lines... Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) - from it's infancy to the Predator ARMED strike platform and beyond... US Army Roadmap for UAS 2010 - 2035 in PDF format - a very interesting read... Those are just a FEW examples, based on facts and history of how quickly and at what pace technology is evolving today... That pace will develope EVEN FASTER going forward... The simple truth as it regards much of this including UCAVs like the X-45 program and others, is NOT the Technology or Hardware, that already exists and is easily doable TODAY... NO, the "problem" is the same one causing great expense and delays in airframes like the F-35 and other "next generation" airframes, that being the SOFTWARE (which for the F-35 is only 50-70% complete and still untested) and in the case of unmanned (but manually and/or artificially guided) the ethical, and legal applications, cost in jobs and financials regarding current contracts (Like the F-35 and F-22), and other implications surrounding their "roll out" and use... However, like all major advances, these "problems" will be worked out... They have to be because if the U.S. doesn't, then China and most likely certain other countries, will... One other thing to remember is that just like it is today when it comes to ANY Military applications it's NOT the "individual unit" that is primary, it's "the package" of diverse units that rule the day... That means that it's NOT just about one type of airframe but rather how that airframe can be best inserted into a "package" of different airframes and functions acting in unison with each other... And still one further consideration, and perhaps the most important one, is the who, what, where, when and how, regarding the NEEDS in any expendature of BILLIONS of dollars of borrowed money and the TIME frames surrounding such a purchase pertaining to the realities (like no more Cold War scenarios) existing in the world today and into the forseeable future... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 ....UAV - While the basic technology has been around a long time, since 2000 in Military application it has evolved tremendously from simple reconnaisence to a very powerful assault weapon capable of "visual and controllable" (as opposed to a cruise missile which is not) precision strikes far behind enemy lines... You were doing pretty well until you got here..."visual and controllable" goes back a long way for missiles of several designs and country of origin. The Americans have had the far more capable Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile (with real time targeting) since 2004 and is very "precise". The US Air Force has the AGM-86 CALCM with similar capabilities....CEPs are now less than 5 meters. It is interesting that you did not include Canada as a possible source for such weapons system development, which will only lead right back to the current type of procurement dilemma. During the Kosovo War (1999), Canada ran out of smart and dumb bombs, and had to drive over to the American depot at Aviano and buy more with a credit card (at inflated prices). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Army Guy Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 Replacing the fleetA number of different fighter aircraft have been considered by the Canadian Forces as replacements for the CF-18 with the F-35 Lightning II, Eurofighter Typhoon, SAAB JAS 39 Gripen, and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet all having been promoted as contenders by their respective manufacturers.[28] According to Le Devoir, project costs without considering maintenance, training and spare parts, are estimated at $4 to $8 billion.[29] Boeing has indicated the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a derivative of the F/A-18 Hornet, is a less expensive alternative at an estimated total cost of $4 billion. [30] One of the manufacturers in contention: Boeing, BAE Systems and Saab Aerospace, has promised to assemble the entire aircraft in Canada although the name was not publicly disclosed.[30] Wikinews has related news: Canada announces $9 billion plan to purchase 65 F-35 fighters Looking back at the start of the replacement program you are right the aircraft you mentioned were considered as replacements, as back then the F-35 was just alittle more than a glimmer in someones eyes....but as time past the F-35 became more than a glimmer but they actually produced working copies....and another gen 5 aircraft was born, a cheaper alternative to the F-22.... The Airforce wants a gen 5 aircraft for many reasons, the F-22 is way out of our price range, that leaves the F-35...which is still very expensive....Don't get me wrong the F-18E/F is a great aircraft today, and into the future...but it's design is still 15 years old today..... Add that to our purcurment history, the whole UNKNOWN UCAV world, our current government eagerness to go ahead with this project, how much more aircraft we are getting with the F-35...., Why would'nt the Airforce get on board.... In July 2010 the Canadian government announced the replacement for the CF-18 will be the F-35 Lightning II. The Canadian government has been a partner in the Joint Strike Fighter Program from 1997 and a Tier 3 partner for the F-35 Lightning II since 2002.[31][32][33] The Canadian Forces plan to buy 65 F-35 with deliveries starting in 2016. The contract is estimated to be worth C $9 billion including aircraft and associated weapons, infrastructure, initial spares, training simulators, contingency funds and project operating costs.[34] Critics said 65 fighters is not enough to fill three complete squadrons and that the F-35 is not suited for arctic patrol since it has a single engine. [35] I do agree with critics that 65 aircraft is not going to be enough, considering accidents,or losses, plus the fact there will be more missions than aircraft....i think in the near future perhaps once production has been started you'll see more aircraft purchased....i think the government already knows this and is misleading our tax payers "i guess it's cracking on nut at a time" As for the single engine, this was once a major concern when we purchased the F-18, however Lockheed has already responded to this with todays engines having closed the safety gap completely, the F-16 actually has a better safety record than the F-18.... That and the fact that the Navy and Marines have also chosen the F-35 as the next replacement aircraft which have the same safety requiements as the Canadians ....I will say they may not have had a choose as it is the only gen 5 aircraft available and it is single engine....and the f-22 once again out of price range.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
GWiz Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) You were doing pretty well until you got here..."visual and controllable" goes back a long way for missiles of several designs and country of origin. The Americans have had the far more capable Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile (with real time targeting) since 2004 and is very "precise". The US Air Force has the AGM-86 CALCM with similar capabilities....CEPs are now less than 5 meters. I believe you misread this part... I agree with everything you say, the DIFFERENCE I was referring to is that you can abort a strike and bring a UAV back without "firing" it's weapons vs a Missile, which MAY be aborted by blowing it up prior to reaching it's destination, perhaps causing unforseen damage, but it can't be "brought back" once deployed... Any arguement with that? It is interesting that you did not include Canada as a possible source for such weapons system development, which will only lead right back to the current type of procurement dilemma. During the Kosovo War (1999), Canada ran out of smart and dumb bombs, and had to drive over to the American depot at Aviano and buy more with a credit card (at inflated prices). I make it a point not to argue with the TRUTH, even if presented by you... Edited February 14, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Wild Bill Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 You say; "I'm listening, teach me", do you you mean it? If you do, and that goes for Wild Bill and others too, I'm willing to try... Let's take a 25 year time frame from 2000 to 2025 as it relates to both life and this thread... Tech changes during the first 10 years (history) we all know about... GPS - Today ordinary citizens can get a multi satellite guided GPS that will tell them where they are anywhere in the world within a few meters/yards for under $200.00... Unheard of 10 years ago (except maybe for VERY EXPENSIVE military use)... A computer on your cellphone or other mobile hand held device that will fit into a pocket or purse available to the general public for around $200.00 to $600.00 - A dozen manufacturers, including a Canadian Co., are making ever more powerful devices that can "touch" people anywhere in the world and that are more powerful, and more useful and user friendly, than most Desktop Computers were 10 years ago... Satellite Radio, Satellite Phones, etc. - Mass Communication via orbiting Satellites including Tech that lets our Military personnel freely communicate with loved ones "at home" while serving "in theater" overseas... 10 years ago perhaps in it's infancy where our Military would "line up" for a 1 min. message to home... Today via apps. like skype any laptop can communicate freely via satellite, can offer 2 way video and voice, for media outlets and any other individual... Available to the general public a methodoly that would 10 years ago have been "top secret" at best... Remote controlled Aircraft available today at any hobby shop that are so advanced in control and performance that they would have been classified "top secret" for strictly Military application 10 years ago... Add to that "Flight Simulators" for use with a joystick and a computer that would have been the most advanced system (probably even better) in flight training just 10 years ago... UAV - While the basic technology has been around a long time, since 2000 in Military application it has evolved tremendously from simple reconnaisence to a very powerful assault weapon capable of "visual and controllable" (as opposed to a cruise missile which is not) precision strikes far behind enemy lines... Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) - from it's infancy to the Predator ARMED strike platform and beyond... US Army Roadmap for UAS 2010 - 2035 in PDF format - a very interesting read... Those are just a FEW examples, based on facts and history of how quickly and at what pace technology is evolving today... That pace will develope EVEN FASTER going forward... The simple truth as it regards much of this including UCAVs like the X-45 program and others, is NOT the Technology or Hardware, that already exists and is easily doable TODAY... NO, the "problem" is the same one causing great expense and delays in airframes like the F-35 and other "next generation" airframes, that being the SOFTWARE (which for the F-35 is only 50-70% complete and still untested) and in the case of unmanned (but manually and/or artificially guided) the ethical, and legal applications, cost in jobs and financials regarding current contracts (Like the F-35 and F-22), and other implications surrounding their "roll out" and use... However, like all major advances, these "problems" will be worked out... They have to be because if the U.S. doesn't, then China and most likely certain other countries, will... One other thing to remember is that just like it is today when it comes to ANY Military applications it's NOT the "individual unit" that is primary, it's "the package" of diverse units that rule the day... That means that it's NOT just about one type of airframe but rather how that airframe can be best inserted into a "package" of different airframes and functions acting in unison with each other... And still one further consideration, and perhaps the most important one, is the who, what, where, when and how, regarding the NEEDS in any expendature of BILLIONS of dollars of borrowed money and the TIME frames surrounding such a purchase pertaining to the realities (like no more Cold War scenarios) existing in the world today and into the forseeable future... "Sorry, Wild Bill, you lost me here... I'm stricly a realist... I won't go into why trying to drop things from space is idiotic and scientifically impossible... EMPs and Nukes? Lets keep it real..." Sauce for the goose, GWiz? I was talking about PRESENT technology! Here you are blue-skying extrapolations over the next few decades as if they are fact! I'm reminded of something told to me by one of my favourite "hard" scifi writers, Robert Heinlein. He wrote about how he kept volumes of news clippings and followed trends, plotting curves galore to see where they would end up. One curve had to do with the speed of human transportation. As you would imagine, the curve began long and flat, with only a slight rise that near the end suddenly rose very steeply as we went from feet to horses to sail, from steam to cars, rockets and so on. A straight extrapolation of this curve showed we would have faster than light travel before the end of the 1980's! Of course, we didn't! The thing about predicting by use of trends and extrapolations is that Mother Nature often has limits and unforeseen factors that derail a curve. The fact that the speed of light is an absolute that can't be exceeded made his curve useless. It's the same with your predictions. Experience and knowledge may give you a high degree of confidence as to their validity but that doesn't make them Gospel. Someone who knows something you don't can make a prediction of yours worthless. That doesn't mean they can't be fun to kick around! I just wouldn't be so righteous, if I were you. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 ...The Airforce wants a gen 5 aircraft for many reasons, the F-22 is way out of our price range, that leaves the F-35...which is still very expensive....Don't get me wrong the F-18E/F is a great aircraft today, and into the future...but it's design is still 15 years old today..... True...and as a matter of US federal law, the F-22 Raptor is not for export...to anybody. It would cost at least a billion dollars to set up the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) to do so, even if it were legal. As for the single engine, this was once a major concern when we purchased the F-18, however Lockheed has already responded to this with todays engines having closed the safety gap completely, the F-16 actually has a better safety record than the F-18.... Yes, a very important point. The little F-16 is now the most widely used tactical fighter and strike bomber in the world, with over 4,000 produced. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 So the United States is a giant arms exporter, who knew......... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 I believe you misread this part... I agree with everything you say, the DIFFERENCE I was referring to is that you can abort a strike and bring a UAV back without "firing" it's weapons vs a Missile, which MAY be aborted by blowing it up prior to reaching it's destination, perhaps causing unforseen damage, but it can't be "brought back" once deployed... Any arguement with that? Just a little...fire and forget weapons are often a tactical advantage, but in the case of some current weapons systems, warhead arming and terminal homing are just options in a larger, programmable flex package. One option includes total disengagement and less harmful impact without warhead detonation. To your larger point, the Americans are pursuing all technology options....missiles....manned aircraft...and UCAVs, if only because of the many possible mission scenarios and defenses. Old timers will remember when the high and fast recon mission and dedicated platforms were considered a separate capability and operation. We are now seeing the convergence of these capabilities in real time. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 Just a little...fire and forget weapons are often a tactical advantage, but in the case of some current weapons systems, warhead arming and terminal homing are just options in a larger, programmable flex package. One option includes total disengagement and less harmful impact without warhead detonation. It still remains that a missile is a missile vs a UAV which is a retrievable, reusable, and constant "pilot/operator" controlled airframe with a wide use multirole function... This is not to say that a "smart" missile does not have it's place and/or advantages in a specific set of circumstances over a UAV... To your larger point, the Americans are pursuing all technology options....missiles....manned aircraft...and UCAVs, if only because of the many possible mission scenarios and defenses. Old timers will remember when the high and fast recon mission and dedicated platforms were considered a separate capability and operation. We are now seeing the convergence of these capabilities in real time. SR-71 Blackbird and U2 Dragon Lady - I remember them well... I take it then that we are in agreement in general of my overall assessment as it pertains to the subject matter of this thread and my attempt to TEACH Army Guy, Wild Bill and some others a few FACTS and realities of our TIME... Whether they are willing to LEARN is of course a completely different matter... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=625853 Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 So the United States is a giant arms exporter, who knew......... Ummm, everyone? So? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 "Sorry, Wild Bill, you lost me here... I'm stricly a realist... I won't go into why trying to drop things from space is idiotic and scientifically impossible... EMPs and Nukes? Lets keep it real..." Sauce for the goose, GWiz? I was talking about PRESENT technology! Here you are blue-skying extrapolations over the next few decades as if they are fact! I'm reminded of something told to me by one of my favourite "hard" scifi writers, Robert Heinlein. He wrote about how he kept volumes of news clippings and followed trends, plotting curves galore to see where they would end up. One curve had to do with the speed of human transportation. As you would imagine, the curve began long and flat, with only a slight rise that near the end suddenly rose very steeply as we went from feet to horses to sail, from steam to cars, rockets and so on. A straight extrapolation of this curve showed we would have faster than light travel before the end of the 1980's! Of course, we didn't! The thing about predicting by use of trends and extrapolations is that Mother Nature often has limits and unforeseen factors that derail a curve. The fact that the speed of light is an absolute that can't be exceeded made his curve useless. It's the same with your predictions. Experience and knowledge may give you a high degree of confidence as to their validity but that doesn't make them Gospel. Someone who knows something you don't can make a prediction of yours worthless. That doesn't mean they can't be fun to kick around! I just wouldn't be so righteous, if I were you. There you go doing it again... "Sauce for the goose, Bill... I was talking about PRESENT technology! Here you are blue-skying extrapolations over the next few decades as if they are fact!" I'll try to be nicer this time as it pertains to what you posted... 'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. - Abraham Lincoln Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 I take it then that we are in agreement in general of my overall assessment as it pertains to the subject matter of this thread and my attempt to TEACH Army Guy, Wild Bill and some others a few FACTS and realities of our TIME... Whether they are willing to LEARN is of course a completely different matter... Nah...I don't think that we are "teaching" them anything...we're just in a virtual pub with no beer. Army Guy and Wild Bill know their stuff, and it's OK to disagree about procurement policy. Some things they and a few others here have taught me is the terribly constrained options that Canada actually has in such matters, the underlying domestic politics having absolutely nothing to do with mission or technical capabilities, and the very long time in service for whatever is eventually chosen. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 Nah...I don't think that we are "teaching" them anything...we're just in a virtual pub with no beer. Army Guy and Wild Bill know their stuff, and it's OK to disagree about procurement policy. Some things they and a few others here have taught me is the terribly constrained options that Canada actually has in such matters, the underlying domestic politics having absolutely nothing to do with mission or technical capabilities, and the very long time in service for whatever is eventually chosen. (I know that, and the other thing I know is that NOTHING done on any board like this makes a lick of difference to anything... "Que Sera, Sera" as Doris day so elequently put it in her song... It can be FUN though... ) I don't think it's so much a matter of constraints though, it's much more about appearances, political appearances... There was no constraint, sadly, when the powers that be bought those 4 useless pieces of scrap they called submarines from the Brits... There were also no constraints when Canada's "air power" consisted of Voodoos (not too bad) and Starfighters (a useless killer) followed by F-5s (ok but very limited usefulness for Canadian needs).. With that kind of "history", when I look at how your Gov. (primarily the Hill) and U.S. Military are "talking" about and "viewing" the escallating costs for the "5th generation" airframes I get a bit worried... When the "owners" (Canada's Gov. of the day) of a team interfere with the "management and coaches" (Canada's Military hierarchy) and dictate how the team (Canada's Military) should play on a day to day basis it's seldom/never a particularly good team, regardless of how good the actual players on the team may be... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Wild Bill Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 I don't think it's so much a matter of constraints though, it's much more about appearances, political appearances... There was no constraint, sadly, when the powers that be bought those 4 useless pieces of scrap they called submarines from the Brits... There were also no constraints when Canada's "air power" consisted of Voodoos (not too bad) and Starfighters (a useless killer) followed by F-5s (ok but very limited usefulness for Canadian needs).. With that kind of "history", when I look at how your Gov. (primarily the Hill) and U.S. Military are "talking" about and "viewing" the escallating costs for the "5th generation" airframes I get a bit worried... Yeah, our politics does seem to always screw things up for the worse, doesn't it? No matter which party is in power. The Arrow, the EH-101, now the F-35 - it really doesn't seem to matter! We can argue about whether or not we could find a use for some cheap but really quiet diesel subs but still, did we have to let them rust before we brought them home? While letting one catch on fire? Coming from the electronic parts industry, I had direct experience selling to our government and the experience gave me a lifelong disrespect for how they operate! If the government bureaucracy had total control we'd still be living in the trees! For example, a lot of the first integrated circuits were sensitive to static electricity charges. That spark you get on a cold and dry winter morning when you pet your cat can destroy some semiconductor devices. So the industry adopted some packaging precautions. It took some years but eventually the military (and government in general) followed suit. Now, when first adopted such integrated circuits were new and rare so they tended to be purchased in small quantities. Individual special wrappings made sense and the specs were based on that assumption. However, by the time the military got around to adopting the specs these devices were much more common and usually purchased in much larger quantities. So packaging standards were modified and improved, not just for individual pieces but for bulk quantities. So when the military ordered in bulk they insisted on the old, individually-packaged specs! Since electronic parts tended to cost pennies to just a few dollars each, this added HUGE costs to the vendor to conform to the old-fashioned packaging. Most often, the vendor learned the hard way, since military orders in Canada were not that common. He would have quoted and won the order based on modern packaging, then had the package returned to be re-packaged at his expense! Now, ordinary folks would assume that governments institute purchasing systems in order to protect our tax money. Wrongo! That's just the official line! In practice, they couldn't care less. They just want their system to be followed, so it will APPEAR to protect tax money! What happened in the electronics industry was that vendors soon learned to pad on lots of extra charges to government quotes, to protect themselves from the costs of all the extra paperwork (that no other customers demanded!) and handling precautions the government demanded. Many vendors just said "Screw it!" as not worth the trouble. The military in Canada bought relatively few electronic parts compared to private industry so a lot of vendors stopped quoting. Sometimes it got actually amusing when a part was needed that had only a few vendor sources. The government would be simultaneously BEGGING a vendor to quote and supply a part yet DEMANDING that same vendor comply with obsolete packaging specs, because they couldn't find a source! Those few vendors that would play the government's game all charged inflated prices, 'cuz they knew they had little competition. Our government successfully evolved a system that cost us MORE! Another example comes from about 1989, when I worked for an older company that among a lot of other things, sold replacement aircraft parts to our government. I remember a co-worker laughing one morning. He had received a quote for a generator for a CF-5 airplane. He had received this quote many times before. Apparently, he had located 2 units which may have been among the last in the world for this obsolete aircraft. He had kept quoting on this basis but the sticker was that one clause in the quote demanded that the vendor GUARANTEE this part would be available for another 25 years! There was no way in Sweet Fanny's Apples that a vendor would be stupid enough to make such a guarantee! The aircraft was already DECADES obsolete! Nobody was making such generators anymore! If one could have been found, it would have been like finding a part for a Model T! The markup for an obsolete part would have been exorbitant! Of course, another clause on the quote demanded that we hold our price for those 25 years! I don't know how it eventually worked out. I know that we constantly refused to make such a stupid commitment and our military purchasing department just kept sending and re-sending the quote. This CF-5 example is why I favour Canada buying the F-35, to at least try to make sure we will have a reasonably modern aircraft for as long as possible. My experience has convinced me that if we go with some CF-18 variant we will be flying that old plane for another 50 years! And trying to find vendors that will guarantee parts availability for another 50! Did you know that the Space Shuttle flies with Intel 286 micorprocessors? That's because that was the last version that Intel was willing to get mil-qualified! By that time they had realized that the volumes purchased by the military was mice nuts in comparison to that bought in the commercial world. Besides, there were commercial grade quality specs that EXCEEDED the mil and aerospace specs! Because they couldn't get more modern computer chips to their old-fashioned specs, NASA chose to stay with the old ones. The very computer you use to participate on this board is lightyears more sophisticated than Shuttle technology, GWiz! Enough of my rant! If I could have become more jaded it wouldn't have bothered me so much... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 Yeah, our politics does seem to always screw things up for the worse, doesn't it? No matter which party is in power. The Arrow, the EH-101, now the F-35 - it really doesn't seem to matter! We can argue about whether or not we could find a use for some cheap but really quiet diesel subs but still, did we have to let them rust before we brought them home? While letting one catch on fire? Coming from the electronic parts industry, I had direct experience selling to our government and the experience gave me a lifelong disrespect for how they operate! If the government bureaucracy had total control we'd still be living in the trees! For example, a lot of the first integrated circuits were sensitive to static electricity charges. That spark you get on a cold and dry winter morning when you pet your cat can destroy some semiconductor devices. So the industry adopted some packaging precautions. It took some years but eventually the military (and government in general) followed suit. Now, when first adopted such integrated circuits were new and rare so they tended to be purchased in small quantities. Individual special wrappings made sense and the specs were based on that assumption. However, by the time the military got around to adopting the specs these devices were much more common and usually purchased in much larger quantities. So packaging standards were modified and improved, not just for individual pieces but for bulk quantities. So when the military ordered in bulk they insisted on the old, individually-packaged specs! Since electronic parts tended to cost pennies to just a few dollars each, this added HUGE costs to the vendor to conform to the old-fashioned packaging. Most often, the vendor learned the hard way, since military orders in Canada were not that common. He would have quoted and won the order based on modern packaging, then had the package returned to be re-packaged at his expense! Now, ordinary folks would assume that governments institute purchasing systems in order to protect our tax money. Wrongo! That's just the official line! In practice, they couldn't care less. They just want their system to be followed, so it will APPEAR to protect tax money! What happened in the electronics industry was that vendors soon learned to pad on lots of extra charges to government quotes, to protect themselves from the costs of all the extra paperwork (that no other customers demanded!) and handling precautions the government demanded. Many vendors just said "Screw it!" as not worth the trouble. The military in Canada bought relatively few electronic parts compared to private industry so a lot of vendors stopped quoting. Sometimes it got actually amusing when a part was needed that had only a few vendor sources. The government would be simultaneously BEGGING a vendor to quote and supply a part yet DEMANDING that same vendor comply with obsolete packaging specs, because they couldn't find a source! Those few vendors that would play the government's game all charged inflated prices, 'cuz they knew they had little competition. Our government successfully evolved a system that cost us MORE! Another example comes from about 1989, when I worked for an older company that among a lot of other things, sold replacement aircraft parts to our government. I remember a co-worker laughing one morning. He had received a quote for a generator for a CF-5 airplane. He had received this quote many times before. Apparently, he had located 2 units which may have been among the last in the world for this obsolete aircraft. He had kept quoting on this basis but the sticker was that one clause in the quote demanded that the vendor GUARANTEE this part would be available for another 25 years! There was no way in Sweet Fanny's Apples that a vendor would be stupid enough to make such a guarantee! The aircraft was already DECADES obsolete! Nobody was making such generators anymore! If one could have been found, it would have been like finding a part for a Model T! The markup for an obsolete part would have been exorbitant! Of course, another clause on the quote demanded that we hold our price for those 25 years! I don't know how it eventually worked out. I know that we constantly refused to make such a stupid commitment and our military purchasing department just kept sending and re-sending the quote. This CF-5 example is why I favour Canada buying the F-35, to at least try to make sure we will have a reasonably modern aircraft for as long as possible. My experience has convinced me that if we go with some CF-18 variant we will be flying that old plane for another 50 years! And trying to find vendors that will guarantee parts availability for another 50! Did you know that the Space Shuttle flies with Intel 286 micorprocessors? That's because that was the last version that Intel was willing to get mil-qualified! By that time they had realized that the volumes purchased by the military was mice nuts in comparison to that bought in the commercial world. Besides, there were commercial grade quality specs that EXCEEDED the mil and aerospace specs! Because they couldn't get more modern computer chips to their old-fashioned specs, NASA chose to stay with the old ones. The very computer you use to participate on this board is lightyears more sophisticated than Shuttle technology, GWiz! Enough of my rant! If I could have become more jaded it wouldn't have bothered me so much... Maybe this is where we disagree... I'm even more jaded than you... I compare and look at what the US Gov. and Military does in regards to it's purchasing of replacing it's fighter aircraft, especially it's Navy and Marine fighter planes... Primarily because the Navy's and slightly less so the Marines need/use aircraft that meet requirements much closer to Canada's needs... For starters the plane the U.S. Navy are getting, pertaining to the F-35, is the F-35c (Navy) varient, not the F-35a (Air Force) that Canada is committing to - - The Air Force's F-35A version of the craft is a conventional takeoff and landing airplane to replace the F- 16 Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt II. It will partner with the F-22 Raptor. The Marine Corps, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force need and want a short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft, dubbed the F-35B. The Marines want new aircraft to replace their AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18 Hornets. The British want to replace Sea Harriers and GR.7 Tornado fighters. The Navy's F-35C version of the plane is a carrier-based strike fighter to complement the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. It will replace earlier versions of the F/A-18 as well as the A-6 Intruder, which already has left the inventory. - That's just the FIRST reason I'm adamently against the purchase Harper announced but certainly not the only one nor the most important one... Incidently, I'd be against this purchase just as adamentely if it were the Liberals in power... My concern regards what's BEST for Canada FIRST and has little or nothing to do with politics... The F-35c has a highly reinforced undercarriage and extended range (for starters) to land on carriers OR unimproved shorter northern runways... Of course at a HIGHER COST... One other major concern I have is the LOW quantity (only 65) of planes being contracted for... Perhaps you, Army Guy and others would like to address this/these point(s) first, hopefully with the same non-partisan approach before we continue? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Wild Bill Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 Perhaps you, Army Guy and others would like to address this/these point(s) first, hopefully with the same non-partisan approach before we continue? I've already stated my position, GWiz! I don't want to see some guy like I was 50 years from now, getting quotes from our government on replacement parts for an F-18! That plane is old today. Sure, they're talking about a jazzed up version but still, at heart an old design with no stealth capability. Without that, it's a lead pipe cinch we will wind up sending F-18s to some third world battlefield where they will be the most visible radar targets in the sky! If we go with a Super F-18 I'll bet a truckload of Canadian beer that's exactly what will happen! Sadly, it's just the Canadian way, as certain as death and taxes. If you want to talk about another aircraft with stealth capability that's cheaper and better suited for us then I'm interested. However, apparently we've been there, done that and found nothing back when the Liberals first signed us up for the program! I agree that you may have pointed out some valid technical problems with the F-35 but remember, those problems will be valid for ALL users of the plane, including the USA! This plane is not yet a finished product and that's why we have engineers, after all. It's hardly fair to criticize them before things are finished. Only the Arrow flew perfectly straight from the design board to the runway! OUR engineers were unique and that's why NASA needed so many of them to put a man on the Moon! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Maybe this is where we disagree... I'm even more jaded than you... I compare and look at what the US Gov. and Military does in regards to it's purchasing of replacing it's fighter aircraft, especially it's Navy and Marine fighter planes... Primarily because the Navy's and slightly less so the Marines need/use aircraft that meet requirements much closer to Canada's needs... Such comparisons are superficial at best, since the US Navy and USMC are procuring aircraft for more specific mission roles in concert with many other aircraft types and capabilities, as well as redundancy across types and weapons systems. Canada does not have this luxury, save for probably never having to go it alone. For starters the plane the U.S. Navy are getting, pertaining to the F-35, is the F-35c (Navy) varient, not the F-35a (Air Force) that Canada is committing to..... ...The Navy's F-35C version [/b]of the plane is a carrier-based strike fighter to complement the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. It will replace earlier versions of the F/A-18 as well as the A-6 Intruder, which already has left the inventory.[/i] - True, but the venerable A-6 bomb truck left inventory long ago, and F-14 "Bombcats" were pressed into service to make up the gap left by the cancellation of the A-12 program. EA-6 Prowlers remain in service until replaced by F/A-18Gs. That's just the FIRST reason I'm adamently against the purchase Harper announced but certainly not the only one nor the most important one... Incidently, I'd be against this purchase just as adamentely if it were the Liberals in power... My concern regards what's BEST for Canada FIRST and has little or nothing to do with politics... As others have stated, PM Harper did not start down this path for Canada. The F-35c has a highly reinforced undercarriage and extended range (for starters) to land on carriers OR unimproved shorter northern runways... Of course at a HIGHER COST... One other major concern I have is the LOW quantity (only 65) of planes being contracted for... A valid concern, but actual airframe downtime and maintenance per flight hour does not necessarily favor more aircraft with less capability. Your DND has crunched the numbers on this already, advertising a four-fold increase for F-35 over existing CF-188s. Edited February 15, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 Such comparisons are superficial at best, since the US Navy and USMC are procuring aircraft for more specific mission roles in concert with many other aircraft types and capabilities, as well as redundancy across types and weapons systems. Canada does not have this luxury, save for probably never having to go it alone. True, but the venerable A-6 bomb truck left inventory long ago, and F-14 "Bombcats" were pressed into service to make up the gap left by the cancellation of the A-12 program. EA-6 Prowlers remain in service until replaced by F/A-18Gs. As others have stated, PM Harper did not start down this path for Canada. A valid concern, but actual airframe downtime and maintenance per flight hour does not necessarily favor more aircraft with less capability. Your DND has crunched the numbers on this already, advertising a four-fold increase for F-35 over existing CF-188s. Where did I say any different? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 I've already stated my position, GWiz! I don't want to see some guy like I was 50 years from now, getting quotes from our government on replacement parts for an F-18! That plane is old today. Sure, they're talking about a jazzed up version but still, at heart an old design with no stealth capability. Without that, it's a lead pipe cinch we will wind up sending F-18s to some third world battlefield where they will be the most visible radar targets in the sky! If we go with a Super F-18 I'll bet a truckload of Canadian beer that's exactly what will happen! Sadly, it's just the Canadian way, as certain as death and taxes. If you want to talk about another aircraft with stealth capability that's cheaper and better suited for us then I'm interested. However, apparently we've been there, done that and found nothing back when the Liberals first signed us up for the program! I agree that you may have pointed out some valid technical problems with the F-35 but remember, those problems will be valid for ALL users of the plane, including the USA! This plane is not yet a finished product and that's why we have engineers, after all. It's hardly fair to criticize them before things are finished. Only the Arrow flew perfectly straight from the design board to the runway! OUR engineers were unique and that's why NASA needed so many of them to put a man on the Moon! A bit off the mark Bill... The much newer and more modern F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a significantly different plane than our CF-188s that need replacing... They are after all the latest U.S. planes of the "4th generation" fighter planes, AND the U.S. NAVY will be flying them well into the future... Past laurels have little to do with decisions that need to be made and addressed today... Can YOU tell me WHY "stealth" is so important to YOU and how does that affect what, when, why, where, and how (which I've asked you before) that meets something Canada has to have? Please address it directly without any hyperbol, if you can, otherwise tell me you can't and don't bother... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Where did I say any different? You left out the parts where the Americans have the procurement and multiple airframe flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances (even the cancellation of a complete program). Comparisons to what the US is doing or has done lacks this context. Better to look at similar sized NATO partners and choices. Canada procured/built CF-188s and then proceeded to starve them to death with long overdue avionics upgrades, comms packages, IFF, FLIR pods, modern munitions, etc. Actual mission readiness (when even deployable - another story altogether) is spotty when you look at Iraq (fair), Kosovo/Balkans (good), and Afghanistan (poor). Fewer, more capable and mission ready aircraft are better than a larger quantity of hangar queens. Edited February 15, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 A bit off the mark Bill... The much newer and more modern F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a significantly different plane than our CF-188s that need replacing... They are after all the latest U.S. planes of the "4th generation" fighter planes, AND the U.S. NAVY will be flying them well into the future... Again...the F/A-18E/F was a stop gap design caused by the ripples from canceling the A-12. It is not the "latest" anything, having entered LRIP in 1996. Can YOU tell me WHY "stealth" is so important to YOU and how does that affect what, when, why, where, and how (which I've asked you before) that meets something Canada has to have? Please address it directly without any hyperbol, if you can, otherwise tell me you can't and don't bother... He/she who detects first...shoots first. It's not like Canada will have a lot of spare aircraft to make up for losses! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wild Bill Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Can YOU tell me WHY "stealth" is so important to YOU and how does that affect what, when, why, where, and how (which I've asked you before) that meets something Canada has to have? Please address it directly without any hyperbol, if you can, otherwise tell me you can't and don't bother... Why, I would think that's obvious, GWiz! Stealth has to do with how easily a plane can be targeted and shot down. It would be naive in the extreme to think that no other country that we may come into conflict in the future would not have technology good enough to knock down our planes. Hell, even in Kosovo our F-18s were often given missions far behind the lines because their electronics was obsolete compared to the other Allied aircraft and we would have compromised security. China and other countries are making great strides in their own aircraft technology. Will we and they never come into conflict? Or perhaps one of their customers? Who knows to what country they will sell aircraft in the future? I've noticed in such discussions that we tend to get dismissive of such possibilities but the arguments always really seem to be saying that "no third world country will ever have comparable aircraft to the USA!" That's not the question. What's pertinent is if they will have fighter aircraft comparable or even better that the CANADIAN forces! Otherwise, we will never be considered a useful player that pulls its own weight. We will just be a "political tagalong" used to show political support and not allowed to do any REAL fighting! I don't believe this to be hyperbole. Based on my observations about the Canadian governments, particularly Liberal ones, in my lifetime, I truly believe this to be likely! Call me a cynic if you want but I have good reasons and lots of evidence! Edited February 15, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) You left out the parts where the Americans have the procurement and multiple airframe flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances (even the cancellation of a complete program). Comparisons to what the US is doing or has done lacks this context. Better to look at similar sized NATO partners and choices. I disagree... Canada is in a unique position because of it's location and size among NATO countries... Your point about the U.S.'s abilities pertaining to it's procurements is totally valid and in part the basis for many of my concerns... Canada procured/built CF-188s and then proceeded to starve them to death with long overdue avionics upgrades, comms packages, IFF, FLIR pods, modern munitions, etc. Actual mission readiness (when even deployable - another story altogether) is spotty when you look at Iraq (fair), Kosovo/Balkans (good), and Afghanistan (poor). Exactly my point... Is there any reason to believe that that would/will change regardless of what Canada buys? Wouldn't a policy whereby cheaper, yet fully capable, planes were purchased, with an amount of those savings set aside to upgrade and service said planes throughtout their service life be a better, more responsible and more prudent policy for Canada's Armed Forces to adopt, begining with THIS case? Fewer, more capable and mission ready aircraft are better a larger quantity of hangar queens. In the words of my favourite ALIEN - "Do or don't do, there is no try." Edited February 15, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Posted February 15, 2011 Again...the F/A-18E/F was a stop gap design caused by the ripples from canceling the A-12. It is not the "latest" anything, having entered LRIP in 1996. Ok, so tell me what other comparable airframes to the F/A-18E/F and it's roll did the U.S. put into service post 1996? I'm willing to learn... He/she who detects first...shoots first. It's not like Canada will have a lot of spare aircraft to make up for losses! That's the "what", care to have a try at the rest? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.