[sandorski]

Buying Used is ok, if it's not too old. Not sure about these planes, but if they were recently built and have a decent track record, I don't see the problem with picking some up.

We all want the Uber Military, but we are generally unwilling to Pay for it. Buying Used allows us to have reasonably good equipment without breaking the bank.

[Jabberwalker]

We all want the Uber Military

I will settle for a barely adequate one. I haven't seen one of those in Canada since I was in kindergarten ... and I'm now 58.

... and yes, I pay a lot of taxes and I expect that some of my taxes will be used to defend this country properly ... and by that I mean by Canadians.

[sandorski]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

We all want the Uber Military

I will settle for a barely adequate one. I haven't seen one of those in Canada since I was in kindergarten ... and I'm now 58.

... and yes, I pay a lot of taxes and I expect that some of my taxes will be used to defend this country properly ... and by that I mean by Canadians.

Fair enough and I agree it should be adequate for Defense.

[Xort]

sandorski sandorski:

Buying Used is ok, if it's not too old. Not sure about these planes, but if they were recently built and have a decent track record, I don't see the problem with picking some up.

This seems like a good case for used. The US had this massive surveillance requirement that they filled with these aircraft. Now that requirement is gone and they have too many planes for the current or projected need so they are selling the extra.

[Winnipegger]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

You remember what the bean counter on here said. If you take better care of your stuff, you wouldn't need new gear every three or four decades.

Actually, I said the new combat ships the Conservatives proposed are the same as the ones they want to scrap. World War 1 ships used rivets, modern ships are welded. WW1 ships had a bow with a vertical edge, modern ships have angled leading edge. I could go on about new design and new technology, but the point is none of that is true with the replacement combat ships. I gave further points: new ships do not have a catamaran or trimaran hull, and they aren't fibreglass or carbon fibre composite, they're just a steel mono-hull. There's a reason for that, but again, no technology upgrade; no difference. A steel hull is a steel hull. The process of refit replaces old obsolete equipment, including replacing computers, radio, radar, sonar, and any other electronics. That new electronic equipment would have to be purchased anyway for new ships. It's less expensive to refit existing ships with that new stuff.

But this discussion is about spy planes. Aurora aircraft are used to patrol Canada's coast, including the arctic. A turboprop is more fuel efficient than a turbojet, so can loiter longer over the area of interest. And a surveillance plane needs to fly relatively slow over the target to get a good look. Wings at the speed of a turboprop are not angled because they're more efficient at low speed. So again, electronics on our Aurora have to be updated every so often, but the plane is fine.

If you want something new, then a manned aircraft isn't actually new. The new thing would be an unmanned drone. We should be looking at unmanned drones. They can stay in the air longer, and when a pilot needs to take a pee brake, he can just be relieved by a pilot at the base. Changing crew is easy when the control console is at an air base.

By the way, in 2003-2005 I worked for a company that manufactures autopilots for miniature UAVs. Their autopilot is the smallest, I don't know if we need the smallest for this role. But the point is there are Canadian companies making stuff. Manufacturers from all over the world came to this Canadian employer for the autopilot, including major American defence industry manufacturers. Why wouldn't we buy Canadian?

[Gunnair]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

You remember what the bean counter on here said. If you take better care of your stuff, you wouldn't need new gear every three or four decades.

Actually, I said the new combat ships the Conservatives proposed are the same as the ones they want to scrap. World War 1 ships used rivets, modern ships are welded. WW1 ships had a bow with a vertical edge, modern ships have angled leading edge. I could go on about new design and new technology, but the point is none of that is true with the replacement combat ships. I gave further points: new ships do not have a catamaran or trimaran hull, and they aren't fibreglass or carbon fibre composite, they're just a steel mono-hull. There's a reason for that, but again, no technology upgrade; no difference. A steel hull is a steel hull. The process of refit replaces old obsolete equipment, including replacing computers, radio, radar, sonar, and any other electronics. That new electronic equipment would have to be purchased anyway for new ships. It's less expensive to refit existing ships with that new stuff.

However, you were proved wrong by reputable links. But, you being a boorish know-nothing, you refused to accept that you chimed in with several posts of 'knowing squat' and were then shown to be demonstrably and utterly wrong.

Next up, email NASA and tell them how to build the Orion spacecraft because you do some blacksmithing, work as a bean counter (meaning you use a computer), and watched the original Star Trek.

[Winnipegger]

I was not proved wrong. You're wrong. You don't want to admit that. It doesn't matter how much the current Harper government deletes my sources, reality remains.

By the way, I was on NASA's short list for two contracts. For the next generation Ion engine, I got a call from NASA when I didn't submit my final bid. One engineer at the Johnson Space Center told me it's extremely unusual for NASA to call a contractor; if they did that then the NASA administrator himself told them to call me. But the full package I got from NASA had fine print buried in the middle that stated anyone outside the US wouldn't get paid. I can't do work without getting paid.

I've already given advice regarding Orion: scrap it. Dragon can do everything better, and at much lower cost. Cygnus and Dream Chaser are good ships too. But Orion is a redux of Apollo, so 1960s vintage technology with new computers. One Congressman already pointed out the launch escape rocket for Orion cost more than the big Falcon 9 rocket used to launch Dragon.

If you're curious, the other time I got on NASA's short list was to replace a 1989 vintage computer with a new one. In 2005 they said the VAX computer running the VMS operating system was discontinued, so had to be replaced. They guesstimated that replacing would require a VAX emulator running the 1989 version of the VMS operating system. But I happen to be a computer programmer and system administrator with certification from 1989 as a VAX/VMS expert. How many people have that? I pointed out the VAX wasn't really discontinued, the VAX was replaced by the Alpha; a new model in the same line. And it ran the OpenVMS operating system. At one point it was a fad in the computer industry that everything had to be "open". They added the word "Open" to the name with version 6.2. The bid was in 2005, work would have begun in 2006, so it would have required applying 17 years of operating system updates. I could do all the work myself. Thought I would need a technical writer to help with all the NASA reports. So two individuals 6 months. NASA guesstimated that an emulator would take 10 individuals 12 months. That's 1/10th the cost. But that bid was not administered by NASA themselves, they had a commercial company called United Space Alliance administer the bid. Yes, the acronym of their name was USA. But it turned out that was a 50:50 joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, and both Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were allowed to bid on the contract. The company manipulated the bid process so I couldn't get it. When I complained, NASA did provide some assistance, but not enough to break through the blatant corruption.

[2Cdo]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

By the way, I was on NASA's short list for two contracts.

[ShepherdsDog]

So did coffee shoot through both nostrils after reading that little gem?

[Jabberwalker]

Yeah. NASAs hard on their gear as well ... shoot it into space and it comes back with scorch marks on the side. Maybe, if they took better care of their gear, they would still have a manned Mercury space program.

[2Cdo]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

So did coffee shoot through both nostrils after reading that little gem?

No, luckily I was finished my coffee. I think Winnipeger has a potential career doing stand-up comedy.

[BartSimpson]

Benn Benn:

Buying other peoples crap. How are those Subs doing anyhow?

I'd just go with drones in Canada's place. Far less overhead on those things and their safety record is awesome given that not a single drone pilot has died in a crash.

[Gunnair]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

By the way, I was on NASA's short list for two contracts.

Eureka!

[Winnipegger]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Yeah. NASAs hard on their gear as well ... shoot it into space and it comes back with scorch marks on the side. Maybe, if they took better care of their gear, they would still have a manned Mercury space program.

Actually, NASA has been trying to develop reusable spacecraft. A past NASA administrator stated they need a spacecraft that operates as an aircraft, not ammunition. The original 1968 requirements for the Shuttle were fully reusable, two stage to orbit. But Nixon got elected and gutted NASA's budget. The Shuttle as built was a fraction of what NASA wanted. No reusable fly-back booster, instead expendable drop tank and solid rocket boosters. The external tank is a big drop tank. Today, SpaceX is developing a space capsule that is reusable. Dragon is designed to fly to ISS 4 times without replacing the heat shield. And Dream Chaser is design to fly as often as the Shuttle; it's basically a mini-Shuttle. Dream Chaser is also design for several flights without replacing the heat shield, but Dream Chaser's heat shield can be replaced as a small number of large chunks. I look forward to seeing it fly.

Dragon currently uses a parachute and splashes in the ocean. Recovered with a fishing trawler, not an aircraft carrier battle group. But SpaceX is already working on Dragon version 2, which can land with rockets. It's parachute is for emergency backup only. As long as the rockets work, the parachute will not be deployed. It will land on a concrete pad at the launch site. Here is an animation of what it will look like...


And here is video of the latest test of Falcon 9R. That is the big rocket used to launch Dragon. It has 9 engines, and 'R' is for reusable. It's designed to return to the launch pad and land on its tail. This test shows the first stage launch 1000 metres in the air, then return and land.

[2Cdo]

Let me guess, YOU invented this. Did I win?