PDA

View Full Version : OT: US ARMY CANCELS RH-66 COMMANCHE PROGRAM!!!!



jjlooxgood
02-23-2004, 11:29 AM
US Army just cancelled RH-66 Commanche Program!
Boeing's stock takes a heavy hits.

----------------------------
Korean Girls Only IL-2 Squad.

77th "Mashi-Maro Love" *W__W*

jjlooxgood
02-23-2004, 11:29 AM
US Army just cancelled RH-66 Commanche Program!
Boeing's stock takes a heavy hits.

----------------------------
Korean Girls Only IL-2 Squad.

77th "Mashi-Maro Love" *W__W*

arcadeace
02-23-2004, 11:43 AM
Nice to see your face again. If you would post on a subject remotely related to Il2/FB, I think it would be wonderful http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

How about a description of the Korean Girls online exploits? Get down and dirty and let us know good you are. Maybe you'll put to shame a lot of bull Ace egos here.

Just a thought...

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg

SeaFireLIV
02-23-2004, 11:47 AM
Strange one this jjlooxgood. Hasn`t posted anything much, and the last post barely avoided a flame war. It says a Korean girls only Squad... Interesting....

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/little_armsFB.jpg
The Fights continue out of the Servers...

p1ngu666
02-23-2004, 11:50 AM
lol, i thought the commanche was ment tobe uber?
theres a few flying too

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

resev
02-23-2004, 11:52 AM
Boeing is in it to its knees.

First they loose the JSF contract, and now they loose the Comanche program!?

Bwahahahaha.

Its almost as they were beeing told:
"dude, your exploits during the war were cool, but now? Sod off and stick to airliners!!!!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gotta be a painfull hit on theyre wallets, thats for sure.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

[This message was edited by resev on Mon February 23 2004 at 09:38 PM.]

arcadeace
02-23-2004, 12:00 PM
It has been painful. My brother after almost 11 years there was laid off a few months ago. No joke.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg

resev
02-23-2004, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
It has been painful. My brother after almost 11 years there was laid off a few months ago. No joke.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Look at it from the bright side.
With 11 years of experience working for Boieng under his belt, he shouldn't have much trouble finding a spot on the competition.
Alltough he probably will have to move, wich is allways a pain in the ***.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

Capt._Tenneal
02-23-2004, 12:42 PM
The real sad thing about this news, IMO, is the expense (or politics) it now takes to develop new designs of aircraft. There was a time when (just taking the US as an example) you had the P-51, P-47, P-38, Corsair, Hellcat, etc. at the same time. Same with later generations up to the mid-70's with the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 all in development.

Now what do we have to look for in the future ? Yet another modification to the F-15 and F-16, the 'Super' Hornet, one new design (F-22) and a 'do-it-all' aircraft (JSF). Same thing with helicopters, it seems, 20 years from now they'll probably making new marks of the Apache. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

namhee2
02-23-2004, 12:59 PM
Annyeong-haseyo,jjlooxgood.
Mannaseo bangawyo.


French Il2 player.
(2004.04.13 back to ItÔ┬┤aewon for 2 weeks.)http://www.schildersmilies.de/schilder/goodidea.gif

StellarRat
02-23-2004, 01:02 PM
The stupid Commache was in development for over 20 years and wouldn't have been operation until 2009. Anything that takes that long and still isn't ready should be cancelled.

As to new aircraft development aren't our planes sufficient for our needs? No one can challenge our Air Force or Navy right now. What's the point of spending billions on something that isn't needed. When a serious threat arises then I'll rethink my opinion.

SE_Aetos
02-23-2004, 01:04 PM
Not surprised at the Commanche getting cut. In the future I don't think you will be looking at many manned aircraft.

Take for instance the Boeing X-45A. You will see more stuff like that in the future just like we are now starting to see Predators and Global Hawks.

SE_Aetos

Korolov
02-23-2004, 01:55 PM
The RAH-66 was a great design, but it was designed for a war that will never happen.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

TooCooL34
02-23-2004, 02:11 PM
Never heard about Korean Girls Only Squad.
And that girl is way far from Korean.
Where are you from, troll?



=815=TooCooL34 in =815=Squad, South Korea

--Quick Spec--
WinXP Pro, AthlonXP 3200+, 1024DDR, FX5900XT 128MB, two SW pr2, TIR2

Chuck_Older
02-23-2004, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jjlooxgood:
US Army just cancelled RH-66 Commanche Program!
Boeing's stock takes a heavy hits.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, Man http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I used to do some work for the Comanche program, R+D type stuff for skin/bulkhead construction to help make the helo lighter...I can only conclude it's obese weight was a huge factor and finding weight savings was an even bigger problem. But still, although I only developed some prototype forming procedures and tooling ideas, it was a cool thing to be involved with. I had really wanted that thing to be a go. Last I had heard (about 16 months ago, before I left that job), the problem was that even the prototype was heavy, and it didn't even have all the avionics and armor, etc, that the real thing would have. Who knows, rumors and vapors is all that trickled down to me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Although I did meet some really nice folks over at Sikorsky because of the whole thing, and I wish them the best and hope that the innovations designed and improved on by them that were intended for the Comanche are recognised for the valuable assets they are, and that that they get on another aircraft soon.

I wonder what will happen at my old job, Comanche was pretty important over there. Must contact my old friends about the whole thing, although as usual, they might be last to know!

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

Chuck_Older
02-23-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:


As to new aircraft development aren't our planes sufficient for our needs? No one can challenge our Air Force or Navy right now. What's the point of spending billions on something that isn't needed. When a serious threat arises then I'll rethink my opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a popular school of thought. I mean, how old is the F-14? And it gets upgraded. The F/A-18? SuperHornet? not quite new ideas, I'll admit. And the AH-64 is a heck of a helicopter.

But, the standpoint that our aircraft are suitable for current needs is an opinion echoed by Germany in the '30s and early '40s. They fell behind the innovation tide and scrambled to pick up the pieces.

I would like to say that manned military aircraft design is alive and well, it's just tougher to meet mission profiles than ever before. I am sure there will always be an important role to be filled by living pilots in military aircraft, in all roles. But you do raise a valid point.

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

VW-IceFire
02-23-2004, 02:58 PM
Something smells fishy of this one...the US Military is spending the big bucks right now on aerospace defense and with President Bush supporting increased defense spending and the need for serious covert operations and precision takeout operations using stealthed aircraft (preferably helicopters) it doesn't make much sense to outright cancel the RAH-66. Unless they plan to take the work on the RAH-66 and redevelop into something similar (happened lots during WWII as well).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Korolov
02-23-2004, 03:02 PM
Well the problem with the program, Icefire, is that the chopper was designed to spot and kill hordes of russian tanks roving across the european continent.

That threat has pretty much gone away, and most enemies now are a guy with a AK-47 shooting everything in sight. Wasting 60 million to dispatch him isn't worth it.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Flamin_Squirrel
02-23-2004, 03:08 PM
Put it this way, dispite how excellent the apache is, it didnt stop some git hiding in a hole with an rpg waiting for one to appear so he could shoot it up the backside.

With the increase of low intensity warware i suppose its not really too surprising a heli they want to develop that costs many times the price but is just as vunrable has been canceled. Shame really, I thought it looked quite cool http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

VW-IceFire
02-23-2004, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Well the problem with the program, Icefire, is that the chopper was designed to spot and kill hordes of russian tanks roving across the european continent.

That threat has pretty much gone away, and most enemies now are a guy with a AK-47 shooting everything in sight. Wasting 60 million to dispatch him isn't worth it.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fair point...unlikely that waves of Soviet armor are going to be rolling across the plains of Europe anytime soon. I suppose I figured the Commanche would be useful as an anti-terrorist weapon. Perhaps they will rethink the program...it still seems like a worthy design although modified may be something important. It seems like having a helicopter that works like a bloodhound against concealead terrorists and posessing high mobility would be more important.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Zen--
02-23-2004, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt._Tenneal:
The real sad thing about this news, IMO, is the expense (or politics) it now takes to develop new designs of aircraft. There was a time when (just taking the US as an example) you had the P-51, P-47, P-38, Corsair, Hellcat, etc. at the same time. Same with later generations up to the mid-70's with the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 all in development.

Now what do we have to look for in the future ? Yet another modification to the F-15 and F-16, the 'Super' Hornet, one new design (F-22) and a 'do-it-all' aircraft (JSF). Same thing with helicopters, it seems, 20 years from now they'll probably making new marks of the Apache. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the M1 series tank is due to stay in service until 2028 btw....thats almost a 58 year life cycle for a tank, simply unheard of.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Zyzbot
02-23-2004, 03:54 PM
Don't forget about the B-52...Serving from the 1950's and predicted to continue for many more years.

Kampfmeister
02-23-2004, 06:54 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Korolov:
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Well the problem with the program, Icefire, is that the chopper was designed to spot and kill hordes of russian tanks roving across the european continent.

That threat has pretty much gone away, and most enemies now are a guy with a AK-47 shooting everything in sight. Wasting 60 million to dispatch him isn't worth it.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Agreed. There is no need for such a weapons system at the moment especially with the end of the cold war more than a decade ago. I myself work for a small aerospace contractor, and was involved making a component for a new fire and forget antitank rocket for the Marines. Last year Congress didn't feel the Marines needed a new antitank weapon, and should rely on the ones available to them at present, so they cut the funding for the project. After eight years of development, millions of dollars, and having finally worked all the bugs out of the system, the Marines are stuck with 750 rounds that will probably just sit in a warehouse somewhere collecting dust.

The Comanche may have been of use during the first gulf war had it been around, but the helicopters available at the time were more than sufficient to neutralize any Iraqi armor. In today's political climate, the only place I can still see a need for such a weapon would be on the Korean peninsula.

It's easier and cheaper to upgrade existing proven weapons systems than to try to develope a whole new one and hope it works. As a side note I also heard once that it takes up to 18 months to build a plane like the F-15. So that if we ever got into a major shooting war again like in WWII, it wouldn't last too long because we would run out of weapons before we could get them replaced.

SkyChimp
02-23-2004, 07:09 PM
I'm glad it's been cancelled. While they are at it, the JSF should be cancelled.

The Commanche was years behind schedule, and had at least 5 more years to go before the first units would be delivered to the Army. The Apache is still a very viable, highly effective weapon. The Army can certainly develope a better helicopter than the Commanche and still have fantastic platform to hold the line in the meantime.

Regarding the JSF: The adoption of an aircraft that is suitable for all services is ridiculous. Each service has its own requirements and has a need for an aircraft with unique capabilities. The JSF was a Clinton era attempt at economization. They basically said "this is what we have to spend, build us the best plane you can for the money." Each service is deserving of an aircraft to meet their specific needs. One size does not fit all.

And the F-22: at least the government approached it in the right way. In contrast to the JSF, the government said "build us a fighter that can meet &lt;insert specifications&gt; for the least cost."

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-23-2004, 07:14 PM
I can understand that upgrading existing technology can be cheaper and worthwhile. But only for so long. The Canadian armed forces have been upgrading and maintaining a fleet of totally obsolete and now dangerous Sea King helicopters (the joke is that they are 'seeking the ground'). For every hour of flight operations it apparently requires 30 hours of preventative ground crew work to pull everything apart and make sure something hasn't failed or isn't about to fail. They won't be replaced until 2008-2010 at the earliest.

I worry sometimes when its suggested that current technology can continue on for decades at a time. I can be prohibitively expensive to repair an older one at some point and new design technologies can reduce the number of parts required, make diagnosing problems easier, and make replacement of parts easier. The F/A-22 is a great looking aircraft but I kind of wonder to a certain extent how effective it will be to maintain. The Russians are selling the Su-30MK to India and others with capabilities that outstrip the current F-15's and yet their price tag is apparently much cheaper. Obviously the Russians hit the nail on the head somewhere...they can't support a cold war style military but they are developing some very cheap, yet effective tools for their military. Their own Commanche/Apache competitor (as I see it) has been in service for a while now and the Su-30 is evidently better than the latest F-15C (thus the development of the F/A-22). So they are doing something right http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

I just worry sometimes about what these guys are doing. If anything, the technology being developed can be made to create effective, sophisticated and yet also cheap and easy to maintain aircraft with longevity in mind.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WhiskeyRiver
02-23-2004, 07:17 PM
I thought that might happen. Boeing can handle it though. They have the FA-18 family, F-15E series, B-2 upgrades, and their civilian contracts. Boeing will be fine.

The Comanche isn't really needed. There's not really a forseeable threat that the Apache can't handle. Same thing goes for the B-52 and M1.

The BUFF was built to penetrate big IADS networks. These are not much of threat in low intensity conflicts. It's versatility,long range, and heavy payload make it an excellent global response platform.

The M1 has decimated anything it's faced. Once again there's, as of now, no forseeable threat it couldn't handle. I have the distinct feeling that lack of export sales is going hamper development of any future rival.

The main developments I see on the horizon are RPV's, precision guided weapons, sensors, and battlefield C3 networks. I'm hoping for a gunship based on the C-130J airframe also.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

DJKruse
02-23-2004, 07:31 PM
Cancelling the JSF would be stupid. I mean sure it seems wierd to make 1 plane for ALL different tasks, but thats what the variations are for. It appears it could work very well.

Korolov
02-23-2004, 08:04 PM
Cancelling the JSF would be cost effective.

We need new stuff, but it doesn't need to be fancy dancy, overly complex stuff.

And in most cases, it's hard to get much of a budget military wise these days - you still need to pay the soldiers (who are, IMO way underpaid right now) and people who keep the machines working.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

USAFMTL
02-23-2004, 08:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I'm glad it's been cancelled. While they are at it, the JSF should be cancelled.

The Commanche was years behind schedule, and had at least 5 more years to go before the first units would be delivered to the Army. The Apache is still a very viable, highly effective weapon. The Army can certainly develope a better helicopter than the Commanche and still have fantastic platform to hold the line in the meantime.

Regarding the JSF: The adoption of an aircraft that is suitable for all services is ridiculous. Each service has its own requirements and has a need for an aircraft with unique capabilities. The JSF was a Clinton era attempt at economization. They basically said "this is what we have to spend, build us the best plane you can for the money." Each service is deserving of an aircraft to meet their specific needs. One size does not fit all.

And the F-22: at least the government approached it in the right way. In contrast to the JSF, the government said "build us a fighter that can meet &lt;insert specifications&gt; for the least cost."

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said Skychimp.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/usafmtl/acfcsig.jpg
www.acfcentral.com (http://www.acfcentral.com)


PFC Wendell Lee Slavens, 17 May 67, S. Vietnam, KIA, Oxford, In

CWO Aaron A. Weaver, 8 Jan 04, Fallujah, Iraq, KIA, Inverness, Fl

Menthol_moose
02-23-2004, 08:44 PM
JSF will be the jack of all trades fighter.

However the masterer of none.

How can it possibly forfill roles as diverse as the F111, A10, F15, F/A18 naval ?



Eh, mates! What's the good word?

RennyB
02-23-2004, 10:03 PM
The attack helicopter is dead. I was in Task Force Hawk in Albania. It took over 100 heavy lifts to get the AH-64's and all the support pieces in place. After all that, they never flew a single combat sortie. Why spend the resources and manpower on short range, vulnerable helicopters when an F-16 launched from the States or Europe can do the some job from 30,000 feet.

jjlooxgood
02-23-2004, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
Nice to see your face again. If you would post on a subject remotely related to Il2/FB, I think it would be wonderful http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

How about a description of the Korean Girls online exploits? Get down and dirty and let us know good you are. Maybe you'll put to shame a lot of bull Ace egos here.

Just a thought...

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure...why don't you f&^^ off yourself first? Just a thought myself as well... (BTW, you must be really good at it...Just a though again).

----------------------------
Korean Girls Only IL-2 Squad.

77th "Mashi-Maro Love" *W__W*

pourshot
02-23-2004, 11:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jjlooxgood:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
Nice to see your face again. If you would post on a subject remotely related to Il2/FB, I think it would be wonderful http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

How about a description of the Korean Girls online exploits? Get down and dirty and let us know good you are. Maybe you'll put to shame a lot of bull Ace egos here.

Just a thought...

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure...why don't you f&^^ off yourself first? Just a thought myself as well... (BTW, you must be really good at it...Just a though again).

----------------------------
Korean Girls Only IL-2 Squad.

77th "Mashi-Maro Love" *W__W*
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WoW thats harsh I think you misunderstood Arcades post.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

WhiskeyRiver
02-24-2004, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Menthol_moose:
JSF will be the jack of all trades fighter.

However the masterer of none.

How can it possibly forfill roles as diverse as the F111, A10, F15, F/A18 naval ?


Eh, mates! What's the good word?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not meant to replace the F-111, A-10, F-18 or F-15.

F-111's role (all weather strike) has been taken over by the F-15E and B-1B.

The F-15C's are going to be replaced by the F-22. There is also talk of developing a 2 seat strike variant of the F-22 to eventually replace the F-15E. Since the F-15E fleet is going to start upgrading engines next year some time I seriously doubt it's anything more than speculation at this point. The F-15C models are old airframes and need replacing. The 'E's are much newer and have plenty of life left.

A-10 isn't going anywhere. Risking a 70 odd million dollar aircraft (JSF) flying CAS is just plain stupid. A-10's cost about 10 million apiece and are still the best at what they do.

The JSF variants are replacing 3 airframes. The F-16(SEAD, A2A, & tactical strike), AV-8B(BAI, CAS), and the F-18C(strike and A2A).

PS: Helicopters are evil creations spawned in the Pit. Their sole purpose for existence is torture, maim and kill the mechanics that work on them. Then they crash. Igor Sikorsky: I hate you more than words can say ;-)

WhiskeyRiver
02-24-2004, 12:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jjlooxgood:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
Nice to see your face again. If you would post on a subject remotely related to Il2/FB, I think it would be wonderful http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

How about a description of the Korean Girls online exploits? Get down and dirty and let us know good you are. Maybe you'll put to shame a lot of bull Ace egos here.

Just a thought...

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure...why don't you f&^^ off yourself first? Just a thought myself as well... (BTW, you must be really good at it...Just a though again).

----------------------------
Korean Girls Only IL-2 Squad.

77th "Mashi-Maro Love" *W__W*
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

get ready for the ban stick :-)

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

ajafoofoo
02-24-2004, 12:16 AM
They should cancel all JSF except the VTOL jsf.

Simply because it's too cool to cancel.

Rajvosa
02-24-2004, 12:44 AM
If you stop and think about it... Does the US military need the Comanche? I'd say no. Not at the moment. The Apache has been perfected, especially the Longbow, there simply is no other helo that can compare to it. What's the point then in spending billions to find its replacement?

It is a good development from other points of view. The less weapons we make, the safer our world is. The only real threat would be different terrorist organizations. Who else would start next major war? North Korea? Not likely. Their economy is non-existant and people are tormented through decades. This is not the fifties. Their will to fight is probably = 0.

The bottom line is, weapons that we have in service at this time are way more than adequate to deal with current (lack of) threats. If something cooks up, I'm sure the old projects will be dusted off and quickly developed into something useful. You know what a stimulant war is to technical development!

http://www.maidenfans.com/imc/pictures/aces_pda.jpg

arcadeace
02-24-2004, 12:48 AM
Jjlooxgood "Mashi-Maro Love" *W__W*

I'm very sorry sweatheart http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg

adlabs6
02-24-2004, 12:50 AM
I have not followed the Commanche or JSF projects, though the cost per unit seems to be higher than often quoted.

As for a "one size fits all" plane, this does not doom such ideas to failure by default. I have often been amazed at the different adaptations of the UH-60 in the various services.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/)

Menthol_moose
02-24-2004, 12:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

It's not meant to replace the F-111, A-10, F-18 or F-15.

F-111's role (all weather strike) has been taken over by the F-15E and B-1B.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aparently we (australia) are getting JSF's to replaced the F-111. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



Eh, mates! What's the good word?

HansKnappstick
02-24-2004, 02:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rajvosa:
It is a good development from other points of view. The less weapons we make, the safer our world is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At least in the western world, the xistence of nuclear and other powerful weapons guaranteed the longest periode of peace so far.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The only real threat would be different terrorist organizations. Who else would start next major war? North Korea? Not likely. Their economy is non-existant and people are tormented through decades. This is not the fifties. Their will to fight is probably = 0.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In the early 90s, the likelyhood of a war in the Balkans was estimated quite falsely in the Western Europe, as you know.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The bottom line is, weapons that we have in service at this time are way more than adequate to deal with current (lack of) threats. If something cooks up, I'm sure the old projects will be dusted off and quickly developed into something useful. You know what a stimulant war is to technical development!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If something really bad cooks up, it may be too late to develop countermeasures if we are lulled now.

Rajvosa
02-24-2004, 02:49 AM
Hans, you can't compare Balkans with North Korea. They underestimated the amount of nationalism that was about to get unleashed in ex-Yugoslavia.

If something really bad cooks up, our current weapons and technology are quite up to the task of dealing with the threat, don't you think?

As for nuclear weapons - that time of MAD (mutually assured idstruction) is now long by. Massive nukes do not fit strategic picture of the world today. Those that have them are thankfully well aware of their destructive power. What makes me sweat is the thought of nuclear weapons falling in the wrong hands.


Regards,

Jasko

http://www.maidenfans.com/imc/pictures/aces_pda.jpg

Willthisnamedo
02-24-2004, 03:49 AM
Hey Zen my friend: 58 year lifecycle for a tank unheard of? Not by the Brits it ain't. I sat and smiled as our combat engineers trundled to a halt at the end of Desert Storm (Gulf war 1, for all you kiddies who weren't born yet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) in their magnificent, reactive armoured engineer tanks: specifically, they were modified Centurions: a tank designed in about 1943 to take on the panzers... OK, not the full 50 years plus, but not bad. The Israelis were also using them until the mid 70s at least, as front line armour. I've also seen working T34s in Bosnia..

This will be an increasing trend as military hardware becomes more dependant for its capability on the software installed. if the basic chassis/airframe/hull is sound, why get rid of it for no purpose? From the same conflict, the WWII vintage Missouri class battleships performed dramatically well- I wouldn't argue with one!!

There's a graph in British defence procurement that shows how many front -line fighter a/c we can buy, set against the entire defence budget of the whole country. It was about 20,000 spitfires, thousands of Hawker Hunters, hundreds of Phantoms: and suddenly: hey presto, we switched to collaboration with Tornado and Eurofighter..Because we couldn't afford to go it alone anymore.

That's why JSF is a jack of all trades, and that's why Tornado and Eurofighter are. Not because of idiotic procurement decisions, but because financial reality dictates it...

I agree with the comment about unmanned a/c above: much as pilots will protest, I suspect that the UCAV is the future. It will be smaller, cheaper, more agile, stealthier, and politicians won't have to explain why someone's son/husband/wife got killed in it flying over hostile territory... And hey, in the long run, is that so bad?

AWL_Spinner
02-24-2004, 04:03 AM
Ah, can't beat a good bit of O/T.

Well as a Brit I'd far rather have seen the money this Government is throwing at being a JSF participant being thrown at Tranche-3 Eurofighter Typhoon (the full Air-Ground capable multi-role variant, which we now may never see).

Typhoon is more of a standalone weapons system than the JSF would ever be. JSF is designed to operate as part of a US strike package with AWACS and F22 cover via datalink, etc. As such it's a fantastic product, but take it out of that environment and stick it out on it's own (as it may well be for the RAF), and it's less capable than other options.

But then it's all about jobs and politics. Can't deny JSF isn't good for British industry and global relations, but then so is Typhoon.

We could have had our very own 21st century F16 there. As it stands, it may never get kitted out for proper A-G and we can't even afford to equip it with a gun. Sad times for the UK services. And don't get me started on the Sea Harrier.

http://www.alliedwingedlegion.com/members/signatures/spinner_sig.jpg

HansKnappstick
02-24-2004, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rajvosa:
Hans, you can't compare Balkans with North Korea. They underestimated the amount of nationalism that was about to get unleashed in ex-Yugoslavia.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you sure there is nothing in North Korea (or any other potential enemy of our world) we underestimate?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If something really bad cooks up, our current weapons and technology are quite up to the task of dealing with the threat, don't you think?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are right, what we have now will allow us to deal with what we know "they" can use against us. But, as in a "Full-Real" server, you die often from the enemy you didn't see, from the threat you didn't perceive.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As for nuclear weapons - that time of MAD (mutually assured idstruction) is now long by. Massive nukes do not fit strategic picture of the world today. Those that have them are thankfully well aware of their destructive power. What makes me sweat is the thought of nuclear weapons falling in the wrong hands.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, Jasko, I am afraid of that as well. I just wanted to disagree with your argument that massing weapons endangers peace. People were slaughtering each other with any weapons (also with tools that are not military items normally).

Rajvosa
02-24-2004, 07:32 AM
Hans

My reasoning is that as long as there are weapons around, there is a desire to use them. It's like having a pack of cigarettes lying on the table. It's easy to reach for them and smoke. And both are bad for your health! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

As for unknown enemy... well I can't imagine what that would be right now. Perhaps we should prepare for an alien attack (ID4-style).http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

North Korea is a joker in a deck of cards. One can never really be sure of what that evil little leader of their is thinking. However, I think that N Korea would really get exhauste quite fast. Everyone is starving, only thing they have are guns. Reminds me of G├┬Âring - Hurra, die butter ist alle!


Regards,

Jasko

http://www.maidenfans.com/imc/pictures/aces_pda.jpg

p1ngu666
02-24-2004, 07:56 AM
i think the threat will be more groups of people than countries
n korea has a robust millitary i think

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-24-2004, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
The stupid Commache was in development for over 20 years and wouldn't have been operation until 2009. Anything that takes that long and still isn't ready should be cancelled.

As to new aircraft development aren't our planes sufficient for our needs? No one can challenge our Air Force or Navy right now. What's the point of spending billions on something that isn't needed. When a serious threat arises then I'll rethink my opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh ya StellarRat,

Your navy is no match against us crazy canadains with are fishing boats.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Tue February 24 2004 at 08:11 AM.]

Chuck_Older
02-24-2004, 03:12 PM
Maple Tiger, I'm curious: are you Quebecois by any chance?

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash