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 |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:56:13 -0700, William Black
wrote: "Michael Shirley" wrote in message newsp.uctgnu05ra3qj7@schooner-blue... On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:59:33 -0700, Zombywoof wrote: I saw some footage of one of GM's plants in China a few weeks back and when I saw the level of automation and the high throughput, my stomach went into a knot. It won't take much to retool for military production. But it'll probably take a level of project management and technical sophistication that isn't available in great quantities in China. Today, no, but that state of affairs won't last for long. The factories may be in China but they're designed in the West, and the skills for designing such a factory, and the management of the processes used, aren't available to the Chinese in any great quantity. That's why they're making Blu Ray players and not top of the range avionics for export. The technologies aren't that different. That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the same with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958 design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be able to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them. I can just imagine what Obama's mob will do when they're elected. -- "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, USN. |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Michael Shirley" wrote in message newsp.ucwkbqu5ra3qj7@schooner-blue... On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:56:13 -0700, William Black wrote: "Michael Shirley" wrote in message newsp.uctgnu05ra3qj7@schooner-blue... On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:59:33 -0700, Zombywoof wrote: I saw some footage of one of GM's plants in China a few weeks back and when I saw the level of automation and the high throughput, my stomach went into a knot. It won't take much to retool for military production. But it'll probably take a level of project management and technical sophistication that isn't available in great quantities in China. Today, no, but that state of affairs won't last for long. The factories may be in China but they're designed in the West, and the skills for designing such a factory, and the management of the processes used, aren't available to the Chinese in any great quantity. That's why they're making Blu Ray players and not top of the range avionics for export. The technologies aren't that different. That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the same with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958 design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be able to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them. It's not the technologies. They don't actually matter. It's the project management techniques that allow you to change direction in a reasonable time frame. These are skills is very short supply just about everywhere, and look like remaining so for the next decade or so. Indian project managers leave India after graduation in droves, mainly to work in the USA. Indian companies hire US companies to do this sort of work for them because they can't recruit any people locally. This leads to the rather odd situation where Indian engineers leave India for a few months and then return, but working for a foreign company at foreign wages. China will get the same problem. -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Jun 17, 10:51*pm, "Michael Shirley" wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:08:18 -0700, eatfastnoodle * wrote: * * * * Look at their defense agreements, military history and joint * defense * programs, to include that nice new port the Peoples Liberation * Army-Navy's * building there. China and Pakistan are closer to each other than the US * * and Germany was in the Cold War. And if you look closely at that, what * you * see is that they're defacto members of SCO. And any professional order * of * battle in that coalition will include Pakistan in China's column, not * ours. That's because Chinese has been on their side ever since the Pakistani independence, both countries has undergone major political and economic changes ever since. Yet no matter who is in charge in Pakistan, generals, politicians, good guy, bad guy, crooks, whatever, China always stands with Pakistan in their fight with India. Their relation is fundamentally in line with their strategic interests. That's why it's so strong. As for the US, I guess everybody agrees that in the eyes of US government, Pakistan is nothing more than a convenient ally at best, a tool I would say. As for average joes, the image of Pakistan isn't that much better than Taliban. * * * * Yup, that isn't gonna change ever since the Chinese provided weapons * after the West embargoed them back in the 60's. One change of approach I would like to say is for the US to give up on its obsession to stick its noses into other people's business. US used to be far better a friend during the cold war when Soviet Union used to send tanks into any of its ally who dared to think about leaving the Warsaw pact, France kicked American troops out and opened pursued its own path, US accepted it and worked with France still. *Seriously, the kind of "Manifest Destiny" attitude ****es off everybody. * * * * Yup. I think that they do it out of habit. For the most part, not a lot * of thought goes into our foreign policy at the Government level. Mostly * it's farmed out to think tanks and Beltway Bandits and a lot of those are * financed by various tax exempt foundations that front for various moneyed * interests. * * * * Your typical politician tends to be ignorant of everything except * fundraising and media relations. He's overdependant on staff and the staff * is overdependant on whomever takes them to lunch and gives them some piece * of research that they're not all that competent to make assessments of. I'm not an expert on the nitty-gritty details, but please elect somebody who knows what he's doing and who has at least a little common sense. WMD issue aside, whether or not the military is "winning" in Iraq now aside, anybody who has common sense would hope for the best but plan for the worst even though you are 100% sure the best case scenario would happen because any sane people would know that there isn't 100% sure thing. instead, this administration based its plan on the assumption that US soldiers would be welcomed as liberators. That's beyond dumb. * * * * You'll never see it here. Our system selects for the lowest common * denominator of politician and thus the lowest common denominator is what * we get. Anybody with real principles or any kind of actual knowledge will * get filtered out before he can run for city council, let alone Congress or * the Senate. Structurally, this country is totally incapable of producing * somebody like Winston Churchill. * * * * And it gets worse. Most government policy is an outsourced product. That * worked sort of, in the 50's because the universities were actually * producing diciplined intellectuals who could apply a little skepticism and * critically assess information. We're no longer able to produce guys like * James Schlesinger anymore, because our university systems have lost the * ability to do that. We ceded the college campuses to the radical left in * the 60's and 70's and now, as far as producing the technicians who * actually can create viable policy and administer it goes, they can't. They * do a remarkably good job of producing fair copies of the New Soviet Man * though. My youngest is in college now, and she's planning on a career as * an attorney. When I got a look at what they're demanding that she take as * core curriculium, I was appalled. A college education these days have * costs ranging from five to six significant digits and looking at what * they're being asked to pay for, I can tell you that a modern university * education in this country is a fraud and things are deteriorating from * there. Critical thinking skills are out and courses based on the most * schizoid ideology I've ever seen, predominate. * * * * The end result is that the formation of policy is in the hands of an * increasingly incompetent group of people. And the end result of that will * be that the policies in question will be schizoid, self contradictory, and * in general, destructive to the continued maintenance of our national * security. * * * * My guess is that the future is going to be replete with ever more * instances of us shooting ourselves in the ass. And anybody who has to * determine what their relationship is to our government needs to take that * into account. I'm an American. I've lived here my entire life except for * some travel as a member of the military. And I can't predict what our * policy establishment or our politicians will do, simply because they're * too ignorant to come up with a consistant policy on anything. You have * some individuals who are competent, but you'll find that Gresham's Law * applies to government as much as it does anything else-- the bad will * drive out the good and we're seeing that here. * * * * So, if anybody's planning on doing anything to preserve Post Renaissance * Western Civilization in the world, they can expect to do it in spite of * Washington at least as often as they do because of it. -- "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral * Elmo Zumwalt, USN. The kind of the attitude reminded me of a Survivor episode from the “social experiment" season (in actuality, they just set up 4 different tribes: Asian, White, Hispanic and Black), the eventual winner, a Korean guy, tried to recruit one member of a former White tribe by blackmailing him using immunity idol (there were two groups, one was made up of former white tribe members, another was made up of remnants of former Asian and Hispanic tribes, the white has the numbers, so they could vote out their biggest target: the Korean guy, in a clever strategic move designed to keep his immunity idol for late use and reverse their disadvantage in numbers, the Korean guy just told his target for recruitment: since I got the immunity idol, when it came to the actual vote, white group's number wouldn't hurt me, and according to the rule, if the person who got the most vote had immunity idol, the person who got the second most vote would go home, which would be you since I would tell my group to vote for you in unanimity.) Not sure what he should do, the white guy returned to his group and tried to hint to his group about the situation by telling them: Yes, he is the biggest threat, but WHAT IF he has the immunity idol, what should we do? The other three just told him: no, he has no idol, he again tried to hint them: but we don't know, WHAT IF.... for multiple times, his tribe mates just refused to even consider the possibility, disappointed, that guy decided to jump to the other side, end of story. This administration and certain ids on this group are exactly like these three "tribe mates". Every time you tell them Iraq is costing America trillions of dollars, causing the dollar to tank, causing all kinds of economic ills, they will just look at you blankly and repeat the same line: but we are killing terrorists, it's better to kill them there than waiting for the mushroom cloud here. They have a laser like fixation on what this administration tell them to the exclusion of everything else. They will talk about security, security, security for a whole year without giving a thought to how to pay for the security, what will be the negative effect on the economy and how it would impact constitutionally guaranteed freedom this country is founded upon. I simply can't understand the mindset. Maybe that's why George Bush was elected twice, because he has zero doubt about the absolute correctness of his actions. Maybe lack of consideration for alternative course actions has become the most important quality people look for. I dunno. |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:18:15 -0700, eatfastnoodle
wrote: The kind of the attitude reminded me of a Survivor episode from the “social experiment" season (in actuality, they just set up 4 different tribes: Asian, White, Hispanic and Black), the eventual winner, a Korean guy, tried to recruit one member of a former White tribe by blackmailing him using immunity idol (there were two groups, one was made up of former white tribe members, another was made up of remnants of former Asian and Hispanic tribes, the white has the numbers, so they could vote out their biggest target: the Korean guy, in a clever strategic move designed to keep his immunity idol for late use and reverse their disadvantage in numbers, the Korean guy just told his target for recruitment: since I got the immunity idol, when it came to the actual vote, white group's number wouldn't hurt me, and according to the rule, if the person who got the most vote had immunity idol, the person who got the second most vote would go home, which would be you since I would tell my group to vote for you in unanimity.) Not sure what he should do, the white guy returned to his group and tried to hint to his group about the situation by telling them: Yes, he is the biggest threat, but WHAT IF he has the immunity idol, what should we do? The other three just told him: no, he has no idol, he again tried to hint them: but we don't know, WHAT IF.... for multiple times, his tribe mates just refused to even consider the possibility, disappointed, that guy decided to jump to the other side, end of story. Interesting. I've worked hard to avoid watching that program. I never did like most television anyway. Most people don't do a very good job of gaming their situations and that situation you describe is a good example of it. Our schools don't teach people to assess their situations and deal with tradeoffs and the result is that we wind up with a population that mostly can't do that. This administration and certain ids on this group are exactly like these three "tribe mates". Every time you tell them Iraq is costing America trillions of dollars, causing the dollar to tank, causing all kinds of economic ills, they will just look at you blankly and repeat the same line: but we are killing terrorists, it's better to kill them there than waiting for the mushroom cloud here. They have a laser like fixation on what this administration tell them to the exclusion of everything else. They will talk about security, security, security for a whole year without giving a thought to how to pay for the security, what will be the negative effect on the economy and how it would impact constitutionally guaranteed freedom this country is founded upon. I simply can't understand the mindset. Maybe that's why George Bush was elected twice, because he has zero doubt about the absolute correctness of his actions. Maybe lack of consideration for alternative course actions has become the most important quality people look for. I dunno. I agree. They can't examine tradeoffs and the guys who can are getting into their 80's now. I kinda suspect that Bush's getting into Afghanistan was more about Hussein's attempt to have his father assassinated after he left office than it ever was about anything else. And the funny thing was that Iraq was our defacto ally until April Glaspie set Hussein for a fall. The people who are fixated on Iraq tend to forget that we propped Hussein up and quietly supported him in his war against the Iranians as an attempt to contain the Islamic Revolution-- something that was, until Bush's father screwed it up, fairly successful as a policy. Now we've blown our own containment policy, you've got the Mullahs making a breakout, China's got strong allies on the Persian Gulf and in the meantime, Bush II is, as always, more about vindicating the regime of his father, than he is about actually governing this country with an eye towards it's future. He's literally taking this country and running it into the ground, and he's not gonna be here when it hits the wall with the bang that it will either. His family's bought a ninety five thousand acres of Gran Chaco in Paraguay and that's where he's gonna retire. I suspect that Paraguay was a second choice too. He had his recently married daughter, Jenna, down in Buenos Aries playing the debutante and acting as her father's proxy. My guess is that the Ausdeutche in Argentina's Lakes District told him that they didn't want him as a neighbor. Those folks like it quiet and he would have brought a traveling circus, complete with freakshow with him, so it's off to Gran Chaco he goes. Kinda sad, Gran Chaco was a kinda nice place. The saddest thing of all, however, is that no matter who wins the election, incompetents will rule, and the only new constant we can count on, is that it'll get far worse long before it gets any better-- if it ever does. The writing was on the wall when Hutchisson-Wampoa got control of the Panama Canal, but the current bunch of decision makers think in terms of video games, the preceeding bunch thought in terms of Poker, and the old guys like Schlesinger were mostly Chess Players. And most of em have never heard of Weiqi, let alone learned how to play it, even though most cultural constants at conflict resolution resemble the games that people play-- and the Chinese play Weiqi, (or as the Japanese call it, Go.) Industrially, we're in decline, logistically, we're broken and strategically we're hopeless. The whole thing is starting to resemble a ******* cross between the worst aspects of the Austro-Hungarians crossed with the Ottomans, and that's not something to aspire to, especially since most of our policy can be best described as Imperial Overreach. I pity the kids who are Field Grade officers now and who'll be General Officers in another ten years, because they're inheriting the most screwed up security picture since John Cantacuzene was Emperor of the Byzantine Empire-- one which quickly shrunk to the city limits of Constantinople. History happens, and it's getting set to happen to us and when it does, it's gonna land with a bang. -- "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, USN. |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:42:42 -0700, William Black
wrote: That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the same with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958 design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be able to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them. It's not the technologies. They don't actually matter. They do. At least for guys like me who used to be on the sharp end of things, and that's a fact. It's the project management techniques that allow you to change direction in a reasonable time frame. They're learning. The Japanese didn't know either until they started listening to Deming back in the late forties. And that milleau produced guys like Akio Morita, who were truly formidible. Care to imagine Morita managing a defense firm the way that he did Sony? The Chinese used to send their guys to school here as science and engineering guys. Now they're studying business courses. Twenty years ago, you couldn't find one of those guys who understood how to do a business case, but now, they're picking it right up. These are skills is very short supply just about everywhere, and look like remaining so for the next decade or so. Depends. They're turning out some great engineers and some of them will show talent just like Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann did. You just watch the successful ones and promote em when they're right, and keep em in competition. My guess is that Shenyang and Chengdu have guys who can manage at least as well as Ben Rich did. It's just a matter of letting em develop, and the Chinese seem to be doing that. Indian project managers leave India after graduation in droves, mainly to work in the USA. I don't blame em. I used to know this one Indian girl who was a fairly good engineer. Her theory is that the country turns out so many of them, because going to college is the only way that they can get away from their parents. It's something to consider. Indian companies hire US companies to do this sort of work for them because they can't recruit any people locally. This leads to the rather odd situation where Indian engineers leave India for a few months and then return, but working for a foreign company at foreign wages. Yup. China will get the same problem. I'm not so sure. The Chinese learn fast and Ford and GM used to have in-house management training programs that were pretty good. -- "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, USN. |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Jun 18, 2:09*pm, "Michael Shirley" wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:42:42 -0700, William Black * wrote: That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the * same with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958 design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be * able to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them. It's not the technologies. They don't actually matter. * * * * They do. At least for guys like me who used to be on the sharp end of * things, and that's a fact. It's the project management techniques that allow you to change * direction in a reasonable time frame. * * * * They're learning. The Japanese didn't know either until they started * listening to Deming back in the late forties. And that milleau produced * guys like Akio Morita, who were truly formidible. Care to imagine Morita * managing a defense firm the way that he did Sony? * * * * The Chinese used to send their guys to school here as science and * engineering guys. Now they're studying business courses. Twenty years ago, * you couldn't find one of those guys who understood how to do a business * case, but now, they're picking it right up. These are skills is very short supply just about everywhere, *and look * like remaining so for the next decade or so. * * * * Depends. They're turning out some great engineers and some of them will * show talent just like Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann did. You just watch * the successful ones and promote em when they're right, and keep em in * competition. My guess is that Shenyang and Chengdu have guys who can * manage at least as well as Ben Rich did. It's just a matter of letting em * develop, and the Chinese seem to be doing that. Indian project managers leave India after graduation in droves, *mainly * to work in the USA. * * * * I don't blame em. I used to know this one Indian girl who was a fairly * good engineer. Her theory is that the country turns out so many of them, * because going to college is the only way that they can get away from their * parents. It's something to consider. Indian companies hire US companies to do this sort of work for them * because they can't recruit any people locally. *This leads to the rather odd situation where Indian engineers leave India for a few months and then return, *but working for a foreign company at foreign wages. * * * * Yup. China will get the same problem. * * * * I'm not so sure. The Chinese learn fast and Ford and GM used to have * in-house management training programs that were pretty good. -- "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral * Elmo Zumwalt, USN. Actually, China has huge internal problem to overcome before it can go out and compete with the US on a global scale. If the US and China could work something out on Taiwan, I don't think conflict between China and the US is inevitable. (assuming Korean peninsula doesn't blow). The thorny issue is always Taiwan, for China, giving up Taiwan is simply a political impossibility, for the US, allow China to take over Taiwan would mean the beginning of the end of American dominance in East Asia. (anybody controls Taiwan would also control Japan's oil lifeline, if China took over Taiwan, the foundation of American Asian strategy: US-Japanese alliance would be shaken to its very core). |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Zombywoof" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:16:45 -0700, tankfixer wrote: In article , raymond- says... "tankfixer" wrote in message ... In article , raymond- says... are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to the teeth with ultra-fighters? Yes. Example: German 1930 to 1940. the germans didn't have the best stuff. and there was plenty of warning. the french built the maginot linebefore the german threat was known. you want to do the same today. we started then too. the u.s. built a tank factory and it was producing tanks in less than a year. In 1930 Germany was a semi stable democracy that was no danger to her neighbors. No one really believe she would be a danger again. Over the next ten years she build up her airforce and army to the point that by 1940 she had taken Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Back then a fighter or tank could be designed and produced in under a year. To suggest that any country can do that now is absurd. Did you mean CAN or Can't. Given enough resources an awful lot can be accomplished. We take an awful long time doing things right now over all sorts of debates over money. In another scrape for survival I think the US could do a whole bunch of things very quickly, although we would have to ramp up a lot of our manufacturing capability first though, or out-source the actual building to the Chinese or somebody. Z, save your breath. tinkerbell will never listen. He's never been involved in a forced project like we used to have once inawhile and the WWII folks operated at al times. When you Federalize the US Industry, things happen extremely fast. Like when GM started to build tanks. As the Line kept going, they retooled as the last car came by. There were cars and suddenly, there were tanks rolling out the same door without much of a hiccup. Ford and Chrysler were doing the same things for the same and different war materials. It took a matter of days, not months since the plans to do so were already on hand as well as the tools, equipment and people. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Zombywoof" wrote in message ... On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:50:55 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote: When analyzed this way, yes, most reasonable folks would agree - these days in real-life you do need - minimum - an upgraded A-10 or equivalent to realistically stand a chance of being survivable, operating in night/adverse weather, and being able to use smart weapons. I'm fairly reasonable and would not agree that upgraded "Close Air Support" airframe could or even should be "upgraded" into the role of an "Air Superiority" fighter. At best the A-10 can be used in a limited air interdiction role. It is absolutely 100% the wrong tool for the wrong job in the role of "Air Superiority". The A-10 operates under the "Low & Slow" method of operation which makes it great for the Close Air Support Mission fro which it was created, but the entire design of the Airframe means it will never be a "Go-Fast" fighter. Up until it actually provided its mission effectiveness (killing tanks dead) during DS/DS the A-10 was headed out of the Active Duty fleet. In DS1, the main tank killer was the Buff. Today, the F-16, F-18, F-15E and soon, the F-35 are much more of an affective armor killer than the A-10. They are less of a target since they are NOT low and slow. The A-10 is going out because it's running out of airframe time. The reason it hasn't already is that it's paid for. But the payment begins to come higher and higher to keep it in service. When the payment to keep it in services is exceeded by the cost to get rid of it then it's gone. It's getting very, very close. Whereas, the B-52 costs less to keep in service than it costs to replace it. I think what turns most critics' cranks is the sheer obscene cost of the advanced fighters. The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15 million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on their factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is also over US $100 million. Neither is as optimized for CAS as the A-10 is (criticisms of the F-35 in that role include that it is less able than the A-10 to find ground targets independently, has less survivability, doesn't persist/loiter nearly as well as the A-10, and doesn't have a Honking Big Cannon). I don't think anyone with a clue is saying please bring back the Skyraider. But it's a legit complaint to quibble about servicing the ground forces CAS needs with super-expensive fighter-bombers. It is of course as much of an issue in Canada as it is elsewhere. There will always be a camp that favours planes along the lines of the retired CF-5/CF-116, others who can stomach prices in the CF-18 range, and any number who are keen to see F-35's replace the CF-18. I myself just can't see something like a CF-35 (or whatever they call it) as being available in enough numbers to support a CF deployment similar to Afghanistan...what'll they have, a couple of ac available in theatre at any given time? The problem for Canada is we cannot easily support two different fleets. Me, I'd go with a Saab Gripen NG. Exactly how long do you think a Fighter can not only be kept in production, but in any type of viable readiness operational capacity. There will come a point in time that more of the fleet is down for repairs then operationally capable. The maintenance costs will also skyrocket as it gets older & older. To me the absolute most brilliant part of the F-35 is the number of countries that will have them in operational use, and if they ever work out the technology transfer issues -- production. This could/would mean that a F-35 from Canada operating in a joint theater could be maintained by & have its spares provided for by any other of the other nations operating the aircraft and participating in the same theater of operations. This could/should lead to just one set of maintenance personnel needing to be in the field in a joint operation. Hell even the pilots could be interchangeable. To me everything about the F-35 screams lower production & operating costs because of commonality across all of an allied Air Fleet. Even the Carrier version is 80% compatible with the land based version. It is about time that the members of NATO and other treaties got their collective act together and started using equipment 100% in common. While Canada may have the intellectual & production ability to design & build its own native fighter, the costs would be huge, and the simple question of "Why?" would have to be asked. -- "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:19:11 -0700, eatfastnoodle
wrote: Actually, China has huge internal problem to overcome before it can go out and compete with the US on a global scale. If the US and China could work something out on Taiwan, I don't think conflict between China and the US is inevitable. (assuming Korean peninsula doesn't blow). The thorny issue is always Taiwan, for China, giving up Taiwan is simply a political impossibility, for the US, allow China to take over Taiwan would mean the beginning of the end of American dominance in East Asia. (anybody controls Taiwan would also control Japan's oil lifeline, if China took over Taiwan, the foundation of American Asian strategy: US-Japanese alliance would be shaken to its very core). Very true. I also think that the Chinese are running against a clock that makes them think that exporting problems on bayonets is easier than solving them at home. Their water's polluted, their arable land is shrinking, desertification is growing, they've got a failure of the One Child Policy and they're overproducing males out of balance with females as a result. The economic growth curve is outstripping the population curve and they're starting to see what a paradigm/reality mismatch is all about as they discover the limitations of a highly centralised government in a dynamic society where change happens faster than they can get the reports on what happened yesterday. If I were on the Standing Committee of the Politburo, that would scare the living crap out of me. And the number of really big projects like the Three Gorges Dam that isn't even finished yet but which is starting to suffer from silting, has got to be causing some panic. Hu Jintao started out as a civil engineer specializing in water projects and dams and even with that kind of expert knowledge at the top, the problems are increasingly insoluable for the guys in Beijing. So increasingly, external military policies, (something that has always wound up being ruinous to the Chinese in the end) are looking better and better, while the local problems become something that they'd just as soon avoid. So, I think that we're going to see a period of optional adventurism in Beijing's future and that's bad for us, especially since we really can't afford a war with those people. Even if our overdependant on Chinese trade economy would survive it, the fact of the matter is that neither our industrial base nor our education system will support it. We need to go tactical defensive/strategic offensive in our actions, and a lot of that needs to revolve around soft power while being militarily unprovocative. We don't, in the crude vernacular of our times, need our politicians to be writing a check with their elephant mouths that our humming bird asses can't cash. In short, we need to change the game, because the one we're playing is gonna get our nose bloodied. All the Chinese need to do in order to win is simply not lose, and our own best option is not to play. Lets let Beijing expend their capital, both economic and political for awhile while we rebuild our industrial base, clean out our universities and other schools and generally start behaving like we still want to be around in 2050, by which time the Adventurists in Beijing will have spent their capital. If they want to have fun trying to police an empire in Africa, lets let them bleed to death doing it. Things might even improve a little bit over there. -- "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, USN. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Logger Choice | Jamie Denton | Soaring | 10 | July 6th 07 03:13 PM |
Headset Choice | jad | Piloting | 14 | August 9th 06 07:59 AM |
Which DC Headphone is best choice? | [email protected] | Piloting | 65 | June 27th 06 11:50 PM |
!! HELP GAMERS CHOICE | Dave | Military Aviation | 2 | September 3rd 04 04:48 PM |
!!HELP GAMERS CHOICE | Dave | Soaring | 0 | September 3rd 04 12:01 AM |