Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Bonam]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Is this banter just filler while the world anxiously waits for Canada to make a decision for another 20 years ?

Pretty much, yes. Everything on here is just banter. None of the people on this forum are the ones making Canada's procurement decisions. 

[bush_cheney2004]

28 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Pretty much, yes. Everything on here is just banter. None of the people on this forum are the ones making Canada's procurement decisions. 

 

The people who are the ones supposedly making the decisions apparently don't either.

[Argus]

10 hours ago, GostHacked said:

What makes you think we'll be flying the F-35 in 2056?

We've been flying the F-18 for 36 years now and plan to keep flying it another ten. Why would you think we wouldn't be flying the next aircraft for a similar lengthy period of time?

[segnosaur]

On 11/30/2016 at 7:39 PM, Rue said:

2056? ...

hopefully by then we will have figured out how to propel craft without fossil fuel.

The U.S. military is right on it...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/military-green-us-air-force-flies-on-biofuel/

.. a test flight on March 25 just might allow a flowering weed known as camelina to replace petroleum as part of the military's energy mix. ...

[Omni]

On 11/27/2016 at 9:51 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

So all that has to happen is to find Canada some used, cheap replacements and this is a done deal ?  

I will start scouring U.S. Air National Guard units and Craigslist.   Maybe Israel can help out too.

We don't plan to start any wars soon so let us know what you come up with so we can continue having exciting airshows that don't degrade to how many people this thing can kill.It tends to scare the kids.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

We don't plan to start any wars soon so let us know what you come up with so we can continue having exciting airshows that don't degrade to how many people this thing can kill.It tends to scare the kids.

 

This doesn't make any sense...NORAD and NATO are not "airshows".

[Omni]

24 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

This doesn't make any sense...NORAD and NATO are not "airshows".

Abbotsford is.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Omni said:

Abbotsford is.

 

OK...send the Russians free tickets.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK...send the Russians free tickets.

Trump can take care of that. He has the connections as you know.

[Army Guy]

35 minutes ago, Omni said:

We don't plan to start any wars soon so let us know what you come up with so we can continue having exciting airshows that don't degrade to how many people this thing can kill.It tends to scare the kids.

Here's something to think about, if and when the next conflict comes about and Canada decides to send our children, what is going to scare them more.....getting into a 40 year plane, with 40 year old munitions.....and hardware...or because it has of history of killing shit......

For some reason once the conversation turns to our nations military, Canadian citizens get all red in the face, and spittle begins to form on their mouths, they begin to twitch and jerk  "YOU CAN"T SPEND MONEY ON THAT SHIT"...... ...they forget....these machines they are to cheap to spend tax dollars on are manned by Canadians....who love this country as much as they do....and who are willing to step  the Frig up and do something about it and serve.....Only in this nation they have to do that with no Support or funding from the masses....

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

Trump can take care of that. He has the connections as you know.

 

Trump can put the squeeze on F-18 Super Hornets too...better buy 'em soon.   Oh wait, Canada doesn't buy anything soon.

[DogOnPorch]

7 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Mid-air refuelling of a drone already done, and the navy is looking at mid-air tanker drone as their first standard carrier based drone. Also mid-air drone to drone refuelling has already been tested with smaller UAVs. 

Carrying capacity is simply an issue of need. Today it is all about precision, not capacity. You can easily get more by having multiple drones, the real question is about bigger is what you want to deliver. Remember that most large aircraft today are capable of performing all the functions of flight automatically, it is a matter of regulation, communication, and acceptance. Communication is the only technical challenge, and it is already solved for smaller UAVs. 

 

Other way around.

Human manned tankers. It's particularly dangerous if not done correctly...static discharge and such. As yet not trusted to robots or remote control. Hands-on, through the plexiglass. I have no doubt a robo-tanker would be a real thing in the future.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Abbotsford is.

Used to be better.

[?Impact]

30 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Other way around.

Human manned tankers. It's particularly dangerous if not done correctly...static discharge and such. As yet not trusted to robots or remote control. Hands-on, through the plexiglass. I have no doubt a robo-tanker would be a real thing in the future.

Yes, understood but as I was alluding to before the Navy is looking at this seriously. Google CBARS.

Yes, there are some advantages of a human gas attendant but there are many advantages that the machine has as well. Depth perception is much better on machines as you can put cameras further apart than the 3" of the human eyes. You can also have other cameras and sensors on the boom itself all feeding the control software. The react time is much faster than the human, and the computers in both aircraft can coordinate as well. Finally if you are refuelling a manned aircraft, it would be easy to display all signals, including video, to the pilot of that aircraft and hand over control as well. 

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, understood but as I was alluding to before the Navy is looking at this seriously. Google CBARS.

Yes, there are some advantages of a human gas attendant but there are many advantages that the machine has as well. Depth perception is much better on machines as you can put cameras further apart than the 3" of the human eyes. You can also have other cameras and sensors on the boom itself all feeding the control software. The react time is much faster than the human, and the computers in both aircraft can coordinate as well. Finally if you are refuelling a manned aircraft, it would be easy to display all signals, including video, to the pilot of that aircraft and hand over control as well. 

 

I suppose: but if you have any time in the cockpit, you'd know it's a whole different ball-o-wax being there as opposed to seeing the world through a screen. All that bump-de-bump and pitch n' yaw...especially in the wash. It's very real...in your stomach.

As for drones doing it properly, it's a bit like figuring out Eurler Equations on the fly in terms of programing. Not impossible (lol)...but, show your work!

 

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[Derek 2.0]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, there are some advantages of a human gas attendant but there are many advantages that the machine has as well. Depth perception is much better on machines as you can put cameras further apart than the 3" of the human eyes. You can also have other cameras and sensors on the boom itself all feeding the control software. The react time is much faster than the human, and the computers in both aircraft can coordinate as well. Finally if you are refuelling a manned aircraft, it would be easy to display all signals, including video, to the pilot of that aircraft and hand over control as well.

 

18 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I suppose: but if you have any time in the cockpit, you'd know it's a whole different ball-o-wax being there as opposed to seeing the world through a screen. All that bump-de-bump and pitch n' yaw...especially in the wash. It's very real...in your stomach.

As for drones doing it properly, it's a bit like figuring out Eurler Equations on the fly in terms of programing. Not impossible (lol)...but, show your work!

 

The USN and USMC use probe-drogue refueling.........the proposed unmanned tanker just needs to be able to fly a stable racetrack.........the hard work is done by the receiving aircraft.............

 

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

 

The USN and USMC use probe-drogue refueling.........the proposed unmanned tanker just needs to be able to fly a stable racetrack.........the hard work is done by the receiving aircraft.............

 

 

The telescopic flying-wing wing boom is a step above the drogue method...but it obviously needs a BIG aircraft to handle the rig.

Gotta love the drogue getting sucked into the intake....

 

[Derek 2.0]

11 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The situational awareness you talk about is really only applicable to fighter aircraft

 

Ahh no.........UAVs, to date, have been used far more as ISTAR platforms........as to their situational awareness, attempt walking down (or driving) a busy city street only looking through binoculars.......  

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

The telescopic flying-wing wing boom is a step above the drogue method

 

That's subjective for tactical aircraft.........

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Ahh no.........UAVs, to date, have been used far more as ISTAR platforms........as to their situational awareness, attempt walking down (or driving) a busy city street only looking through binoculars.......  

Once computers get their own awareness (as Bonam mentions) then perhaps a drone with a military version of the Google Street View technology will be a fact.

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

That's subjective for tactical aircraft.........

I bet it would depend on what one trained on, mostly.

The boom looks to be a lot more stable than a drogue just hanging in the breeze...but, agreed.

[Derek 2.0]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I bet it would depend on what one trained on, mostly.

The boom looks to be a lot more stable than a drogue just hanging in the breeze...but, agreed.

 

Not really, for fighters, there are no real advantages for a boom (larger types can take advantage of a faster discharge rate, but not fighters), and unlike a boom, drogue allows for 2-3 simultaneously refueling aircraft......and as you said, the physical size of the tanker.

[Derek 2.0]

11 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Once computers get their own awareness (as Bonam mentions) then perhaps a drone with a military version of the Google Street View technology will be a fact.

 

The next phase of unmanned flight will be reliant upon technology developed for the F-35..........until they develop a completely autonomous aircraft, the limiting factor (for remotely piloted UAVs) will always be awareness, bandwidth and the curvature of the Earth.  

[Omni]

Satellites aren't bothered by curvature of the earth. That's how uav's are guided. Just ask Obama.

[Omni]

5 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Used to be better.

I signed off airshows after the last one I was at in YXX when the Snowbirds did their thing and finished off blowing smoke while carving a big hart in the sky and then a loner completing with a stroke through the middle was upstaged by the Americans demonstrating and discussing on the loudspeaker just how quickly an A-10 Warthog could attack and kill everyone in an armored tank. Yee haw, USA!