|
For what it's worth the Royal Navy is pretty drat pissed off over the F-35 as well. They went through hell to get two carriers authorized and now they likely won't even have planes to fly from them (the Harrier went bye bye because the RAF brass has a collective fetish for the Tornado). I've heard rumors of cutting their losses and buying something else like the Super Hornet or the Rafale.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 11:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I've linked to it before, but if you are at all interested in the JSF you really need to read the Quick Look Review report if you haven't. Also, I don't see anywhere in the Canadian spec that says "less than 40ms". Which means it, technically, does meet their requirements at the present latency. grover fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Mar 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
mikerock posted:I bet SAAB could make one. SAAB could make anything. If the Canada deal falls through for LM you can bet that SAAB will be biting at the chain. They are still pissed at how they "lost" the Norway deal to the JSF. "Lost", that is, since the entire thing was for show. The Norwegians even claimed that the JSF would be cheaper than the Gripen for heavens sake! With the Swiss deal meaning that the new Gripen NG is getting greenlighted and the rising cost of the JSF seems to have no end, Saabs biggest dream right now is another shot at the JSF NATO countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
grover posted:It's a brand new aircraft not yet in full production. Why don't they just upgrade the processor and sensors and fix the helmet? Motherfucker doesn't need to run on a 386SX just because that was the fastest chip when the first spec was drafted. I forget the long answer for this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone who actually knows about this will be along shortly to correct me or expand on this, but my understanding of military computer poo poo is that every new "thing" that is developed has to go through some loving obscene testing/authorization/adaptation process that has its roots back in military procurement ca. WW1 or some poo poo. I just remember back when Future Warrior was the new hotness and people were talking about infantry with HUD helmets and poo poo there was some stupid little thing with what amounted to a netbook in a backpack, and it could be easily fixed by adding more RAM. The boards they were playing with had 2x512mb slots or something like that, but only 2x256 installed. Why not just slide in more RAM? Because for whatever model and manufacturer they were using the 256 version was OK'd but the 512 wasn't, so they had to go through an approval process on that component. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Mar 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 14:06
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I forget the long answer for this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone who actually knows about this will be along shortly to correct me or expand on this, but my understanding of military computer poo poo is that every new "thing" that is developed has to go through some loving obscene testing/authorization/adaptation process that has its roots back in military procurement ca. WW1 or some poo poo. Pretty much this, which is why one of the main pieces of link equipment I work with has 512MB of RAM and an Ultra Sparc ii processor (I think 440MHz) and suffers greatly because of it. Though a new version with some decent specs is finally coming out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:"Oh Heavens, another missile." It just wants to be helpful. Like the robot from Space Camp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 14:40
|
|
BLEEP BLEEP ATTENTION HUMANS INCOMING MISSILE DETECTED *BZZT DRRR* ENGAGING COUNTERMEASURES *ffwwwwooouuuBZZZZZZZZZZ* MISSILE DESTROYED GO BACK TO SLEEP HUMAN FRIENDS
Thank you, CiwsBot!
we love you, CiwsBot!
|
Stroh M.D. posted:If the Canada deal falls through for LM you can bet that SAAB will be biting at the chain. They are still pissed at how they "lost" the Norway deal to the JSF. "Lost", that is, since the entire thing was for show. The Norwegians even claimed that the JSF would be cheaper than the Gripen for heavens sake! The charade that was the Norwegian New Combat Aircraft acquisition process shames me. The dickwit who pushed the entire thing through (according to the interceptet US Embassy cables he was "our man") is now Minister of Defense. The military top brass as well as the MoD (plus the same three or four hyper-verbose, aggressive F-35 fanboys) are struggling and spinning like a donkey strapped to a cart fallen half-way off a cliff with every new revelation of just how hosed the program is. It's amazing what bullshit they'll whip out, and I can't but help feel a little excited about maybe getting to watch the entire house of cards go down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 14:53
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:It just wants to be helpful. Like the robot from Space Camp. You'd hope that's how it goes. I'm still fearful of giving armed robots AI. They're going to remake Robocop, but I don't know why. This still sums up the MIC: 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I forget the long answer for this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone who actually knows about this will be along shortly to correct me or expand on this, but my understanding of military computer poo poo is that every new "thing" that is developed has to go through some loving obscene testing/authorization/adaptation process that has its roots back in military procurement ca. WW1 or some poo poo. The "Integrated Core Processor" and all the related sub systems are very different than regular computers bought by the private sector. The multiple redundancies as well as the security layer makes the systems very different from their commercial counterparts and makes design, debugging, and other QC activities most people take for granted as a huge issue with development and subsequent upgrades. In my view avionics and mission management software will become the the predominant issue with future combat aircraft. As the lines of code increase substantially and the computer hardware becomes more complicated more and more of the non-recurring costs will fall into the realm of hw/sw.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:You'd hope that's how it goes. I'm still fearful of giving armed robots AI. I'm eternally amused that Paul Verhoeven had to trim back that scene to avoid an 'X' rating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
daskrolator posted:The "Integrated Core Processor" and all the related sub systems are very different than regular computers bought by the private sector. The multiple redundancies as well as the security layer makes the systems very different from their commercial counterparts and makes design, debugging, and other QC activities most people take for granted as a huge issue with development and subsequent upgrades. It's already at that point. By far the longest part of flight testing is software and mission systems qualification. As an exmple for how long it takes to get flight hardware qualified, the "most advanced jet flying" (f22) runs on 3 25mhz core processors. Its not directly trnslatable to common computers because they are embedded machines with real time operating systems, but still. As for software complexity, a superbug runs on about 1.5M lines of code, an f22 about 5M, and the f35..... 25M and counting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I'm eternally amused that Paul Verhoeven had to trim back that scene to avoid an 'X' rating. I re-watched RoboCop a few months ago and was pretty amazed at how insanely over-the-top the violence was. I mean, that poo poo's insane even by today's jaded standards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I re-watched RoboCop a few months ago and was pretty amazed at how insanely over-the-top the violence was. I mean, that poo poo's insane even by today's jaded standards. I get that same vibe when I watch The Wild Bunch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I'm eternally amused that Paul Verhoeven had to trim back that scene to avoid an 'X' rating. I'm eternally amused that the guy playing the evil corporate executive is in reality an acoustic-guitar-playing singer/songwriter hippie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
If Canada adopts the Gripen, Typhoon or Rafale instead of the F35, I wouldn't lose a loving minute of sleep over it. I used to defend the F35 purchase, now I'm full reverse and ecstatic they're talking about going with something else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I forget the long answer for this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone who actually knows about this will be along shortly to correct me or expand on this, but my understanding of military computer poo poo is that every new "thing" that is developed has to go through some loving obscene testing/authorization/adaptation process that has its roots back in military procurement ca. WW1 or some poo poo. This isn't an issue that has its roots in WWI procurement so much as a common thing in embedded systems. Even ordinary desktop PCs can have issues with memory compatibility (your motherboard or computer manufacturer actually has an approval process as well, believe it or not), and embedded systems are designed with much tighter specs in mind. Plus, there are all sorts of things to consider that don't come up often when you're talking about a Dell or Acer or Macbook: what happens when the humidity gets too high, or too low? What happens when you hand the system out to guys working near a radar? What if a shell or IED goes off nearby, and the clips that hold the RAM in are only specified for "average college student" levels of abuse? When you go out and buy what's on sale at Best Buy, there's no guarantee you won't end up with a computer that has weird bugs when you get into a firefight. If you're talking about Battlefield 3, no big, it's just some annoying troubleshooting and a new $20 stick of RAM. If you're talking about a situation more important than your computer games, approval gets a bit more important. It's a big deal even outside the MIC; industrial robots, for instance, go through many of the same processes (and a lot of them run on what looks like seriously outdated hardware, too). Even CAD workstations usually run on expensive certified hardware, just because downtime for the engineers who work on them is really loving expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
Flanker posted:I used to defend the F35 purchase, now I'm full reverse and ecstatic they're talking about going with something else. Glad to hear it. I have heard a few things lately along the lines of "we can go with other options" from the Cons, but given that the whole process has been based on lies, this could be another lie to try and dampen things down a bit On the other hand, maybe the revelation that even the requirements (which were written like some pol trying to write a job ad so he only could hire his cousin) say not to buy the F-35 is an attempt to walk back on this issue, so the Cons can make a graceful exit. My cynicism says otherwise, though Flanker posted:If Canada adopts the Gripen, Typhoon or Rafale instead of the F35, I wouldn't lose a loving minute of sleep over it. Me nether. I've heard that the Gripen and the Rafale are pretty tough planes; just the thing if we're going to fly 'em like Canadians (IE constantly for like 40 years.) 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Figure at current costs we could get way more then the desired 2400 airframes if we bought a mix of F15-SE's, & F16-E/F's, each at probably only a third to half of the cost compared to buying F35's. With the remaining two thirds, spend half of that on further enhancing the low observability of the super vipers and silent eagles, and then some of the other half on a shitload of super tucano's to use as low cost utilitarian bomb slingers in places where there isnt much risk of any enemy air defenses, like today's small wars. Then we can keep our jets shiny and new.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
PAK- Agreein with isaayaayaaayas though, we're still gonna buy them. After incurring some bullshit pullout penalty that no one ever mentioned before, mysteriously. EH-101/Cormorants all over again! I'm down with Rafales though, they're awesomely weird looking especially from the front.  lookit that downsy gently caress Also think we should go total Frenchified and license the Mistral design for our JSS needs. priznat fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Mar 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
MiG-35! MiG-35!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Russian jets? French jets?! Y'all a bunch of commies! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Capitalism has failed, can't build a jet worth flying for less than several billion dollars 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Why all the hate for the F-35? Serious question, because all I know about it is from Die Hard 4. Also, I would be greatly amused if Canada actually bought a fleet of Migs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
The F-35 is shaping up to be a jet that supposed to do everything cool and sexy that people want jets to do nowadays (high tech, fast, LO, VTOL, etc) but in reality is turning into a massive boondoggle and can't seem to be made to do even a fraction of what was promised. Some countries, like Canada, staked a large portion of their future air capability on it and now they're afraid they've backed the wrong horse and it's about to cost them dearly. It's a "all your eggs in one basket" fiasco that will cost a lot of money to fix, if it can even be fixed at all. Edit: from the Wiki page, the F-35's current problems The Helmet mounted display system does not work properly. The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard. The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service. The F-35C's arresting hook does not work. Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.[121] The wing buffet is worse than previously reported. The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan. The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas. The software development is behind schedule. The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, too heavy for VTOL operations. There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft. The automated logistics information system is partially developed. The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern. Scratch Monkey fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Mar 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Why all the hate for the F-35? Serious question, because all I know about it is from Die Hard 4. It tries to do everything, it doesn't do anything well, and it costs more than other aircraft that do some things well because it tries to do everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:
You forgot '4 hardpoints and no cannon' My masturbation fantasy is license building PAK-FAs in Canada. There is literally no physical reason this couldn't happen. But giving Russia money would be like, really bad or something, we're safer to sink our entire economy into lock-mart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
It also looks stupid. This is important  I still hold a grudge over the YF-23.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Psion posted:It also looks stupid. This is important Looking cool is the other half of the battle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Flanker posted:Looking cool is the other half of the battle. Hence your dream of domestic PAK-FA manufacturing. I like your thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Why not the Flanker then, you did say looking cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
I can understand the Air Force, Navy, and Marines wanting the same plane to keep costs down. But in hindsight, would it be cheaper for each to buy their own plane than to try to make one plane fit three different holes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Well, see, the F-111 worked so well as a money saver, and... and  Ralph Peters (yes, that Ralph Peters) wrote a hilarious in hindsight book about the F-35 procurement process back in 1999. Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Mar 27, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I can understand the Air Force, Navy, and Marines wanting the same plane to keep costs down. But in hindsight, would it be cheaper for each to buy their own plane than to try to make one plane fit three different holes? Well if you want something good and cost effective, yeah. But by getting it to replace like 12 different planes, the complexity (and development time) goes way, way, up. It also becomes more important to the government which means you can be all sorts of incompetent and they won't cancel the project. Ka-ching! Honestly, they missed a trick. They should have also proposed some sort of flying boat F-35 for the Coast Guard, and made it able to go into space for NASA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I can understand the Air Force, Navy, and Marines wanting the same plane to keep costs down. But in hindsight, would it be cheaper for each to buy their own plane than to try to make one plane fit three different holes? Multi-role aircraft do indeed keep costs down when the roles it is intended to fill are at least somewhat similar to each other...which is why the F-16 was able to replace the F-104G (in NATO service) and the F-4 while complementing (and eventually replacing) the A-7 in USAF service, as well as complementing the A-10 and F-15 and why the Hornet/Super Bug combo has basically replaced every other fixed wing fighter/interceptor/strike/attack aircraft in the Navy's inventory (although the Navy accepted less performance in some of those categories in exchange for the cost savings increased commonality got it, which is an important thing to note...for example, the Super Bug is nowhere near capable an interceptor as the Tomcat, but the Navy has accepted that risk. Food for thought with regard to the JSF program.) The arguable kiss of death for any joint fixed wing project is when it is intended to operate both from a land base and from a CATOBAR carrier. While aircraft can and do make the transition from one service to the other after entering service (usually naval to air force...F-4, A-7, F/A-18), projects that start from the ground up intending to produce a design that is capable of operation from a carrier while retaining high performance for land bases seem to face issues. If the JSF hadn't included STOVL, it would arguably be less of a clusterfuck than the TFX from a requirements standpoint since at least with the JSF both the USAF and USN want a strike fighter (with slightly different tailored requirements, obviously) whereas with the TFX the AF wanted a low altitude interdictor while the Navy wanted a high altitude missile truck interceptor...however, since it DID include STOVL, we get the mess we have today. Honestly, a lot of the non-avionics/processor related issues can be traced back in one way or other to the fact that the STOVL version has been even more of a disaster than the rest of the program, requiring multiple redesigns (including the massive 2004 STOVL Weight Attack Team redesign) that have had ripple effects out to the other two variants as well as in some cases reducing commonality, which is one of the things that has driven costs up. Smiling Jack posted:Well, see, the F-111 worked so well as a money saver, and... Haha, holy poo poo, seriously? Nebakenezzer posted:Well if you want something good and cost effective, yeah. Pretty much. The JSF is too big to fail. And  at the flying boat/spaceship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 02:16
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Haha, holy poo poo, seriously? http://www.amazon.com/Traitor-Ralph-Peters/dp/0380976412 http://books.google.com/books/about/Traitor.html?id=X4c-1ysx_-IC IIRC, the plot has something to do with the french intelligence services stealing a key design component of the JSF's stealth coating. The US then fakes a terror attack on the French aerospace facility to cover up the fact that the stealth coating doesn't work. Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Mar 28, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:since it DID include STOVL, we get the mess we have today. MARINES! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
but the navy's army's air force needs a stealth fighter that can take off and land vertically 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:but the navy's army's air force needs a stealth fighter that can take off and land vertically  or  or 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:MARINES! Haha...not touching that one unless someone really wants to get into it. Again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Ralph Peters (yes, that Ralph Peters) wrote a hilarious in hindsight book about the F-35 procurement process back in 1999. Didn't the procurement process for the F-22 start in 1993? Edit: checked, and hah, 1991.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 03:57
|
|
