If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message m... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: That is the theory behind UCAVs. One pilot can fly until he/she is tired and then someone else can fly. Reliability-Availability-Revenue ...except that UAVs, for at least the next couple of decades, are going to be missing the first and second parts of that chain. That will be true for perhaps another ten years, but not beyond that. "Reliability," in modern terms, means "all weather, day and night," as a bare minimum. We have enough trouble keeping most of them in the air in *good* weather. Until they get a decent self-piloting/return/defense mode for when they lose their uplink, they're just big model airplanes. The satellite sensors are in the que. "Availability" implies "can do all of the jobs we need them to do." Availability means they will fly at all. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:34:04 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . "Fighter Mafia" is generally associated with the group that promoted the Light Weight Fighter back in the day. As far as the F-22 being pork, it's only pork if it's the *politicians* fighting for the program against the will of the services. Well I guess that could be "pure pork" vs different degrees but so far I've not seen anywhere where the USAF has said they DIDN'T want the F-22. The F-22 defines the careers of many senior grade officers in the USAF. It doesn't get much more political than that. The F-22 became Georgia pork when a certain California congressman tried to cancel it in '98. When Newt was first out it was actually possible to end the mysery. There are going to be politicians out there who are going to fight the cancelation of ANY weapon system because it's being built in their domain. The thing that makes a decison/system/whatver "pork barrel" is when it's built mainly because the politicians want it to be so they keep those jobs and get those votes. There are quite a few that fit that description (V-22) but when it's the people who will be using it who are clamoring for it it isn't "pork barrel". There is more to the definition of "pork barrel" than simply "not loved by all". The simplest test is who wants to buy it and who wants to cancel it. If the politicians had forced the Sgt. York on the Army that could be called pork pure and simple. The USAF doing everything in their power to buy as many F-15s as they could was not pork even though the politicians would have preferred more cheap F-16s and fewer F-15s. The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep. Did the Air Force want it? Nope. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:34:04 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . "Fighter Mafia" is generally associated with the group that promoted the Light Weight Fighter back in the day. As far as the F-22 being pork, it's only pork if it's the *politicians* fighting for the program against the will of the services. Well I guess that could be "pure pork" vs different degrees but so far I've not seen anywhere where the USAF has said they DIDN'T want the F-22. The F-22 defines the careers of many senior grade officers in the USAF. It doesn't get much more political than that. The F-22 became Georgia pork when a certain California congressman tried to cancel it in '98. When Newt was first out it was actually possible to end the mysery. There are going to be politicians out there who are going to fight the cancelation of ANY weapon system because it's being built in their domain. Non-sequitur. The thing that makes a decison/system/whatver "pork barrel" is when it's built mainly because the politicians want it to be so they keep those jobs and get those votes. All aviation is politics. There are quite a few that fit that description (V-22) but when it's the people who will be using it who are clamoring for it it isn't "pork barrel". There is more to the definition of "pork barrel" than simply "not loved by all". The simplest test is who wants to buy it and who wants to cancel it. I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand you being confused. If the politicians had forced the Sgt. York on the Army that could be called pork pure and simple. The USAF doing everything in their power to buy as many F-15s as they could was not pork even though the politicians would have preferred more cheap F-16s and fewer F-15s. Dude, the F-15 was built in Gephardt's District; pure pork. It is the same as when Newt did it. The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep. Define good? Did the Air Force want it? Nope. The C-130J was a risk management driven design based on the possibility of a failed C-17 program. Now there is an example the F-22 could strive for, a miracle like the C-17 turnaround. The new management will have had their year before the ax falls. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message m... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: That is the theory behind UCAVs. One pilot can fly until he/she is tired and then someone else can fly. Reliability-Availability-Revenue ...except that UAVs, for at least the next couple of decades, are going to be missing the first and second parts of that chain. That will be true for perhaps another ten years, but not beyond that. Nope. Some of the more-optimistic folks have claimed that, but all of the current UAVs out there are showing just how weak that prediction is. Heck, we had two of the current models crash in the same area, in the same afternoon. Add in enemy jamming and other countermeasures (or even a couple of guys in a light plane with shotguns), and UAVs stop looking quite so nice. They're great for loafing around in unchallenged airspace, but none of the ones even in *development* are going to be anything near what we need. "Reliability," in modern terms, means "all weather, day and night," as a bare minimum. We have enough trouble keeping most of them in the air in *good* weather. Until they get a decent self-piloting/return/defense mode for when they lose their uplink, they're just big model airplanes. The satellite sensors are in the que. They're already using satellite-based uplinks. As anyone with any satellite receiving experience can tell you, that's not exactly a guarantee of 100% uptime. If someone figures out where your ground station is and knocks it offline for more than a few minutes, it can kill the whole mission. *Then*, you have to come up with software and hardware that will let that same UAV fly in heavy weather, when the rain is so heavy the uplinks fail right after launch, with 30 knot crosswinds. We are nowhere *near* that sort of capability right now, and nobody is even attempting to predict when that's going to happen in the near future. On top of all that, you have to start considering in-flight failures of UAVs in heavy use. If you lose a few of the important instruments on a manned fighter, the pilot has a chance of bringing it in by hand. If you lose that with a Predator, it crashes. "Availability" implies "can do all of the jobs we need them to do." Availability means they will fly at all. Nope. If it flies, but can't do the job, it's not available for actual use. Instead of "availability," use the term "mission capable." -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:16:41 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . There are going to be politicians out there who are going to fight the cancelation of ANY weapon system because it's being built in their domain. Non-sequitur. No, brush up on your Latin. That's a truism, but it definitely is not a non-sequitur. The thing that makes a decison/system/whatver "pork barrel" is when it's built mainly because the politicians want it to be so they keep those jobs and get those votes. All aviation is politics. That would be called a baseless assertion. One could as easily say that "all aviation is business". Or, maybe "all aviation is Freudian penis-envy...." Nah, sometimes a cigar is just a smoke. There are quite a few that fit that description (V-22) but when it's the people who will be using it who are clamoring for it it isn't "pork barrel". There is more to the definition of "pork barrel" than simply "not loved by all". The simplest test is who wants to buy it and who wants to cancel it. I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand you being confused. Every airplane has to be built in someone's district. And, let's agree that the US is better served by domestic production of our weapons than international consortium. If the military is an active participant in the development program and they decide that it meets requirements, than it is hard to argue "pork." As mentioned if the military is ambivalent or in opposition, then you've got "political" and "pork". Maybe a better example is the years of forcing F-111s on the USAF because John Tower was Speaker. And, when the F-16 was bought, lo and behold--same builder, same plant, same district---but no longer pork because now the production out of Ft. Worth was something we wanted and needed. The USAF doing everything in their power to buy as many F-15s as they could was not pork even though the politicians would have preferred more cheap F-16s and fewer F-15s. Dude, the F-15 was built in Gephardt's District; pure pork. It is the same as when Newt did it. Dude, the F-15 went into production in that district before Gephardt got elected to that seat. Ditto for the C-130 out of Marietta--except that one predates Newt by about 25 years. Production started in the '50s on the Herc line. The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep. Define good? High utility, relatively low cost, totally amortized development etc. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Fighter Mafia" is generally associated with the group that promoted the Light Weight Fighter back in the day. As far as the F-22 being pork, it's only pork if it's the *politicians* fighting for the program against the will of the services. Well I guess that could be "pure pork" vs different degrees but so far I've not seen anywhere where the USAF has said they DIDN'T want the F-22. The F-22 defines the careers of many senior grade officers in the USAF. It doesn't get much more political than that. The F-22 became Georgia pork when a certain California congressman tried to cancel it in '98. When Newt was first out it was actually possible to end the mysery. There are going to be politicians out there who are going to fight the cancelation of ANY weapon system because it's being built in their domain. Non-sequitur. The thing that makes a decison/system/whatver "pork barrel" is when it's built mainly because the politicians want it to be so they keep those jobs and get those votes. All aviation is politics. Because you say so? There are quite a few that fit that description (V-22) but when it's the people who will be using it who are clamoring for it it isn't "pork barrel". There is more to the definition of "pork barrel" than simply "not loved by all". The simplest test is who wants to buy it and who wants to cancel it. I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand you being confused. I have to go by whether the end user thinks it works or not. Not by the opinion of a wannabe. If the politicians had forced the Sgt. York on the Army that could be called pork pure and simple. The USAF doing everything in their power to buy as many F-15s as they could was not pork even though the politicians would have preferred more cheap F-16s and fewer F-15s. Dude, the F-15 was built in Gephardt's District; pure pork. It is the same as when Newt did it. You could claim that no matter *where* it was built because it was bound to be built in *somebody's* disctrict. The fact is you don't know what the term "pork barrel politics" means plain and simple. The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep. Define good? Good as is better than what it replaced. Good as in cost effective. How do you define good? Whether you like the paint job or not? Did the Air Force want it? Nope. The C-130J was a risk management driven design based on the possibility of a failed C-17 program. The USAF didn't want it. Period. Which part of that don't you understand? The C-17 is an obvious success yet the USAF was still forced by politics to buy the J. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:16:41 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . There are going to be politicians out there who are going to fight the cancelation of ANY weapon system because it's being built in their domain. Non-sequitur. No, brush up on your Latin. That's a truism, but it definitely is not a non-sequitur. It was non responsive to what I wrote. The thing that makes a decison/system/whatver "pork barrel" is when it's built mainly because the politicians want it to be so they keep those jobs and get those votes. All aviation is politics. That would be called a baseless assertion. One could as easily say that "all aviation is business". Or, maybe "all aviation is Freudian penis-envy...." Nah, sometimes a cigar is just a smoke. That is a truism. There are quite a few that fit that description (V-22) but when it's the people who will be using it who are clamoring for it it isn't "pork barrel". There is more to the definition of "pork barrel" than simply "not loved by all". The simplest test is who wants to buy it and who wants to cancel it. I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand you being confused. Every airplane has to be built in someone's district. And, let's agree that the US is better served by domestic production of our weapons than international consortium. And that production is always a pork delivery, because it transfers money into the District. If the military is an active participant in the development program and they decide that it meets requirements, than it is hard to argue "pork." As mentioned if the military is ambivalent or in opposition, then you've got "political" and "pork". Maybe a better example is the years of forcing F-111s on the USAF because John Tower was Speaker. I claim the two are identical from a political support perspective. Some in USAF are so invested in the F-22 that cancelleation would be the end of their careers. Instead of a golden parachute to Lockmart they would just be done. Once again, aviation politics. And, when the F-16 was bought, lo and behold--same builder, same plant, same district---but no longer pork because now the production out of Ft. Worth was something we wanted and needed. LOL Have another drink, Ed. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... "Fighter Mafia" is generally associated with the group that promoted the Light Weight Fighter back in the day. As far as the F-22 being pork, it's only pork if it's the *politicians* fighting for the program against the will of the services. Well I guess that could be "pure pork" vs different degrees but so far I've not seen anywhere where the USAF has said they DIDN'T want the F-22. The F-22 defines the careers of many senior grade officers in the USAF. It doesn't get much more political than that. The F-22 became Georgia pork when a certain California congressman tried to cancel it in '98. When Newt was first out it was actually possible to end the mysery. There are going to be politicians out there who are going to fight the cancelation of ANY weapon system because it's being built in their domain. Non-sequitur. The thing that makes a decison/system/whatver "pork barrel" is when it's built mainly because the politicians want it to be so they keep those jobs and get those votes. All aviation is politics. Because you say so? Aviation is too much money to be anything but politics. From the choosing of a vender all the way to operational missions, the aircraft is politics driven. In the civilian world, every 747 crossing the Pacific is politics, every Country allowing small GA is doing so for ploitical reasons. There are quite a few that fit that description (V-22) but when it's the people who will be using it who are clamoring for it it isn't "pork barrel". There is more to the definition of "pork barrel" than simply "not loved by all". The simplest test is who wants to buy it and who wants to cancel it. I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand you being confused. I have to go by whether the end user thinks it works or not. Not by the opinion of a wannabe. I hadn't really elevated you to the level of wannabe, Scott; but a little self deprecation is a good sign on your part. If the politicians had forced the Sgt. York on the Army that could be called pork pure and simple. The USAF doing everything in their power to buy as many F-15s as they could was not pork even though the politicians would have preferred more cheap F-16s and fewer F-15s. Dude, the F-15 was built in Gephardt's District; pure pork. It is the same as when Newt did it. You could claim that no matter *where* it was built because it was bound to be built in *somebody's* disctrict. The fact is you don't know what the term "pork barrel politics" means plain and simple. Pork barrel politics means reelection and perhaps a speakership. The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep. Define good? Good as is better than what it replaced. Good as in cost effective. How do you define good? Whether you like the paint job or not? I'd say the new engines are a disapointment without the new wing and the derating provides little bang for the buck. The warbird eliminates a crew member, which is at best a questionable tactic. The incompatability with the fleet adds to the question of why anyone would replace their already good C-130H. Did the Air Force want it? Nope. The C-130J was a risk management driven design based on the possibility of a failed C-17 program. The USAF didn't want it. Period. What you want and what you get are sometimes different things. Which part of that don't you understand? The C-17 is an obvious success yet the USAF was still forced by politics to buy the J. There was no obvious success when the C-17's wing broke well below specification, exactly as predicted by the Nyquist shake. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Scott Ferrin
wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:58:05 -0700, (Harry Andreas) wrote: In article , Scott Ferrin wrote: If (and this is a very big IF), the F-22 should collapse, then a better choice for all-wx, day/night ground attack is another buy of F-15E Being actively considered, with upgrades The super eagle is as dead as Gephardt's political career, but a transfer of F/A-18E avionics might be possible from the other St Louis Congressional District. If by saying "super eagle" you mean this thing with the new wing and various stealths mods you're right. Building a Stirke Eagle with the latest electronics and an APG-63 (or even 77) AESA and HMS is completely doable though and a far better choice than any Hornet. Put in a couple of those -132s the Block 60 F-16s get and it would be even better. The USAF will NEVER buy Block 60s. What I meant was if the F-22 is cancelled one of the things that could be put into new Strike Eagles are the -132 engines *that are in* F-16 Block 60s. Sorry. I mis-read your statement. Even better though would be the more powerful engines both P&W and GE have tested with 3D nozzles. Still scratching my head as to why they were both virtually ignored by any potential customers. Probably money (acquisition cost) and money (lots of flight test hours) Is flight test still $1M per flight hour? Last I heard it was. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |