Vanilla Ice Q&A

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by HippoCrushEverything, Aug 13, 2017.

  1. you fucking autists
  2. ETB4U likes this.
  3. airbus touge
  4. There's an aviation thread for nonmilitary plane things.

    Also I pity the poor mechanics who have to do all the necessary tests and inspections after a hard landing like that.
  5. dont be so bossy you arent even a mod
  6. #84 HippoCrushEverything, Oct 11, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
    Why is it that the minimum legal drinking age in the United States is 21, but the minimum age for enlistment is 17?

    Does anyone honestly believe that a pint of beer is more harmful to an 18-year-old than experiencing the sort of psychological strain war exerts on the human mind? Why do this sort of people and policies still exist in 2017?
  7. alcohol, drugs, sex are all much more taboo than violence in american society

    you can buy a gun before you can buy a mikes hard lemonade. in vermont you can buy a handgun at 16
  8. #86 Vanilla Ice, Oct 12, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
    I have been curious for awhile now if Saab might be able to capitalize on the ongoing spat between Boeing and Bombardier. As of a few months ago, Boeing was essentially a shoe-in for two major contracts: the CF-18 replacement (worth upwards of $15B in capital and $60B lifetime) and the CP-140 replacement (worth around $2B in capital and $10B lifetime). The CP-140 is basically an advanced variant of the P-3 Orion, and the P-8 was the only choice anyone was seriously considering. The Advanced Super Hornet derivatives we're also pretty much going to walk away with a contract, after they were already confirmed as the stop-gap platform.

    However, for those who aren't aware, Boeing issued a complaint that Bombardier was being unfairly subsidized by the Canadian and Quebec governments in its CSeries sales (in particular to Delta Airlines), and that these subsidies unfairly hurt Boeing's business. The Trump administration responded favorably for Boeing, issuing a 300% import tariff on the CSeries (Connecticut-built Pratt and Whitney engines and all). Now, beyond the irony that the greatest recipient of corporate welfare on the planet complaining is calling something unfair, and the fact that Boeing doesn't actually offer an aircraft that competes with the CSeries, Boeing has put its military contracts at risk. Both the Canadian Department of National Defence and the UK Ministry of Defence have threatened to block any future Boeing contract over the issue (Bombardier is the largest manufacturer in Northern Ireland, making wings for the CSeries, among other things).

    I've been an F-35 hawk for a long time, but Saab can make a very generous industrial case for Canada's next fighter that Lockheed simply cannot match. To get a sense of the scale of this project from Saab's perspective: if hypothetically Saab successfully tendered the Gripen E/F, with the amount of money Canada was looking to spend on its next fighter remaining unchanged at current estimates, half of all the Gripens in service worldwide would be in the RCAF (despite the fact that it currently has seven operators). That's a contract Saab would bend over backwards to win, and we've already seen how far they've been willing to go in their much smaller contract with Brazil - offering domestic manufacturing and integration. Moreover, they'd have a pretty attractive domestic industrial partner for local manufacture in Bombardier. Bombardier and Saab already collaborate on a number of projects, with Bombardier providing airframes for special missions aircraft of all sort to Saab, following Saab's departure from the business jet market. Bombardier also has significant fast-jet experience, being the prime contractor for all CF-18 maintenance from 1983-2003, and being the owner, operator, and maintainer of Canada's BAE Hawk advanced jet trainers.

    A large order would also give Saab and the RCAF flexibility to check off a lot of major mutual wish-list items. Saab has proposed an electronic warfare variant of the Gripen F, which has been on the RCAF's wishlist for a long time. Canada currently has no dedicated electronic attack aircraft, and electronic attack training is currently provided by a contractor, Discovery Air, using old A-4s. A large order would also provide sufficient airframes for a dedicated aggressor training squadron, another major item from the RCAF wish list currently provided by Discovery Air's A-4s, and dissimilar training would still be possible with the future Hawk replacement as well as annual multi-national exercises like Maple Flag. The Gripen is also cheap enough to be a contender for replacing the Air Demonstration Squadron's old Tutor trainers, which are falling apart (the Tutor was replaced in all of its other duties by the BAE Hawk, which is itself now due for replacement). Saab has also been toying with an UCAV variant of the Gripen, while UCAV procurement is a major funding priority for the Canadian DND to replace leased IAI Herons. Moreover, Saab's relative lack of experience in UAVs would be offset by Canada's wealth of experience (through both Bombardier and MDA). While Bombardier hasn't had much industrial UAV success, they've made many developmental firsts (including the first operation of a rotary-wing UAV from a military ship). MDA, meanwhile, leveraged its experience in satellite ground stations to become a major UAV ground station subcontractor for European and Israeli UAVs.

    A hypothetical order could look something like:
    1 Demonstration squadron (Gripen F, possibly without combat or weapons systems)
    1 Aggressor squadron (Gripen E, possibly without weapons systems)
    2 Training squadrons (Gripen F)
    2 Electronic warfare squadrons (Gripen EW)
    2 UCAV squadrons (Gripen UCAV)
    6 Single-seat combat squadrons (Gripen E)
    2 Twin-seat combat squadron (Gripen F, rear seat for weapons/intelligence systems officer as in Brazil)

    For a total of around 220-250 aircraft, just half of which are standard fighter roles. There is some flexibility in numbers alone. Due to airframe availability, Canada can deploy just one flight (about four-six aircraft) abroad without stepping on its NORAD responsibilities, such that it can support one NATO mission like Baltic or Icelandic air policing, or one combat mission like in Libya or Iraq, but not both at once. With the above numbers, the RCAF could deploy a full squadron, such that it could support all four of those above missions at the same time. Alternatively, if the Demonstration and Aggressor aircraft had full combat systems, the Air Force would have a surge-capability of two squadrons available for crises, which is not possible today as the roles do not share airframes. Such an order manages to take three major existing on-the-books procurement programs out from under Boeing (fighter, UCAV, demonstration), plus one which is hypothetical but likely (electronic warfare), plus one which would simply not be possible from another vendor (aggressor).

    The other major contract on the books for Boeing to lose is the maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) replacement. Boeing's P-8 Poseidon is the stand-out leader here, although Airbus has forwarded a patrol variant of the A319, and Northrop has proposed a Naval version of the RQ-4 Global Hawk. Saab has flown a prototype MPA called the Swordfish, which is based on the Bombardier Global Express. It is less capable than the P-8: fewer operator stations and fewer weapons stations, and off-the-shelf radar (Leonardo Seaspray) verus purpose built (Raytheon's P-8 package). However, Canada doesn't normally fly a full weapons load on the CP-140 anyway (and the Swordfish handles the same Harpoon missiles and Mark 46 torpedoes in current RCAF inventory), and the new Global Express variants could significantly outperform the P-8 in endurance, by 15-20%, which is a major advantage in the arctic. Moreover, Canada's MPA duties are in much lower threat environments than the United States, India, and Australia (P-8 operators). This is before considering the fact that the Global Express is manufactured in Toronto.

    Recent high-profile deployments of the CP-140 have seen it take on an increasingly large ground-surveillance role, in Afghanistan, Libya, and now Iraq. Saab other ISR aircraft, the Globaleye, is a multi-mission aircraft which includes ground-surveillance as one of its two primary missions. It has recently entered operational service with the UAE, and it has about 60% commonality in mission systems to the Swordfish, excluding the base aircraft, which is also the Bombardier Global Express. Such a platform could be extremely attractive, given the high utilization of the CP-140 in the Middle East and its reported value to our allies, the high utilization of the Raytheon Sentinel in the same region, and the limited availability of American E-8 aircraft. Moreover, the second mission of the Globaleye is AEW&C, and this adds a major capability to the RCAF that it has wanted for some time. Thus, whereas achieving MPA, ground-surveillance, and AEW&C roles on the 737 platform requires three unique airframes, doing so with the Global Express only requires two. Moreover, the Swordfish has lifetime costs of about 70% that of the P-8, while the Globaleye is around 50% of the Wedgetail, and the platforms have more commonality. I strongly suspect the RCAF is simply priced out of any other AEW&C platform.

    For the cost of a one-to-one replacement of 21 CP-140s for 21 P-8 Poseidons, you could purchase 21 Swordfish MPAs and 4 Globaleye AEW&C aircraft, with vastly greater domestic industrial benefits, and significant expansion of capabilities. This is potentially a major windfall for Saab and Bombardier both. I can't they aren't talking about this behind closed doors?
    SEABEE and HippoCrushEverything like this.
  9. Also, in a major surprise to me, Saab is way better at promo photos and renders than its competitors.



  10. Can you not write this up formally and submit it? Jesus. How they haven't collected all your meta data, seen what kind of an asset you could be and offered you a job is beyond me.
  12. There are plenty of good ideas out there being put forward by both academics and journalists. For a long time, the Canadian-American Strategic Review, based out of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, was a rare voice of reason in Canadian defense. These guys consistently put forward sensible ideas that met major defense objectives within fiscal realities and with major industrial benefits. They're the ones who put forward the idea of using new-build Guardian 400s for the arctic patrol role, and put the idea of a CSeries-based MPA out there years ago (which would more than alleviate capacity concerns of the Global Express based Swordfish), and stressed that the Navy really needs to ditch the corvette-sized Kingston class 'coastal defense vessel' and replace it with an actual class of corvette supplemented with small patrol boats.

    The major issue is that 'sense', in Canadian defense, seldom means sensible use of defense dollars for the mutual benefit of industrial and security concerns. Politics are always a major pitfall, and a lot of these ideas aren't politically palatable. Shutting Boeing and Lockheed and Northrop and Raytheon out of five or six procurement projects at once, as my previous post suggests, could pose serious long-term problems for a country with limited domestic defense interests. Canada has an immense domestic defense industry, with globally-leading and globally-unique capabilities, but often that is selling mid-tier arms to poorer countries (like exporting the Guardian 400 as a primary MPA platform for Africa and the Caribbean), as subsidiaries of foreign firms (like the London office of General Dynamics producing most of America's Strykers), or as subcontractors (like Magellan Aerospace producing advanced composites / machined parts for the F-35 / F-22 / 787). Without a major domestic systems integrator and prime-contractor, Canada is in the unenviable position of trying to maintain positive relationships with firms whose best interest is ripping us off - even if that's unintentional (the ideal platform for America is seldom the same size or capability as the ideal platform for Canada, but that's the platform these firms have available to offer us). Canada desperately needs a major domestic integrator, especially when you look at the benefits it's given Sweden and Norway in Saab and Kongsberg. These aren't even big companies by North American industrial standards - Saab's annual revenue is $4B CAD, and Kongsberg is half that size. General Dynamics' Canadian subsidiaries do $15B of work a year, they just don't happen to be Canadian-owned.
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  13. [​IMG]

    hippo does this go here or in aviation thread

    Bell X-22

  14. OK. Sooooo..... with all that said..... my point still stands in that you are too fucking smart and should probably be working for them.
  15. Dumpster fire thread
    HippoCrushEverything and ETB4U like this.
  16. [​IMG]
    mp9, belgian guy
  17. [​IMG]
    thracian chariot with powerplant
  19. What's the likelihood of a UCAV variant of the JAS-39E being procured? What are the advantages/disadvantages of a Gripen UCAV compared to a dedicated stealthy UCAV platform, such as the Taranis-prototype?

  20. Why is the the presumably Belgian cisgender scum ruining his privileged transparent windshield (the opaque ones are being discriminated against by the DMV)?

    Also, you like Soviet peculiarities, so here's one with an impressive rate of fire for a weapon of its type. Now that I think of it, it's a recurring theme in Soviet weaponry. The 2B9 82mm mortar/light field gun hybrid thing:

    SEABEE likes this.
  21. the caption said something about close combat training im assuming its a close quarters ambush response or something. I dont think its ideal to shoot through your own windshield
  22. A fighter-based UCAV is really a new concept that would not be employed in the same way as either straight-winged UCAVs like the Reaper, Avenger, Heron, et al., nor like the sealthy delta wings like Taranis, RQ-170, et al.: there are truly new possibilities that a high-performance, full-service UCAV can bring to bear.

    All the old possibilities are still there. We can send a Gripen UCAV out to loiter over a site of interest and collect optical, radar, and other electronic data. We can send it out over a target to drop precision-guided bombs and missiles (and since it's a bigger airframe, larger weapons like standoff missiles, anti-ship missiles, and more). And maybe we can use the Gripen's mach 2+ speed in lieu of the stealth of an RQ-170 or Taranis to get a snapshot of a contested site of interest (although sonic booms would, unfortunately, let them know we were looking). The price of a Gripen is actually not far from a high-end UCAV, with the stealthier delta wings likely in the $50-75M range, but if you were already a standard Gripen operator, you'd be able to save some cash on maintenance and overhaul. In this sense, it's just a really fast GA Avenger, that can carry bigger bombs, and costs a good penny more. Which doesn't sound like a great deal, but at least it checks all the boxes.

    The real cool stuff is about integrating it into standard combat flights. This is something a standard UCAV cannot do, because they don't fly as fast, aren't as agile, maybe they don't have the radar or situational awareness - but a platform based on a lightweight fighter has all of these things and more. Imagine an unmanned fighter leading manned elements by a few dozen nautical miles and 15,000 vertical feet. Its radar can pickup hostile signals that would be over the horizon for the manned elements and relay targeting information to manned aircraft full minutes before the hostile parties could see the manned elements of the flight over their own horizon. In a combat scenario, an unmanned companion could loiter over the battle space, filling in blind-spots in radar, lending targeting information, and making its own weapons stores available to manned pilots. Or in other words, when you run out of AMRAAMs, you can keep on firing anyway, they'll just launch off the UCAV and not your own aircraft. For its own self-protection, since manned operators at high latencies would be a liability, such a UCAV could be programmed to maintain a strict relative position to a flight lead in combat, or find a holding pattern at a distance, or a few other pre-determined options.

    Being a Gripen UCAV would already have an advanced AESA radar up front, with both the gun and the cockpit vacated, and all the human-factors equipment gutted, there is a lot of spare space for avionics. An optics turret would not take up much space where the gun was, to be frank. In the case of the EA-18 Growler, the space vacated by the gun is where the electronic warfare suite sits (minus a few extras on the wingtips and tail). It imaginable that a Gripen UCAV would be equipped for electronic warfare by default, giving combat flights organic jamming support, and freeing manned electronic warfare flights for complex operations like SEAD, jamming in higher-threat environments, SIGINT duties, and so-on.
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.

Share This Page