- Reaction score
- 1,762
- Points
- 1,140
The decision to chuck secret hardware (or not) is not taken lightly.
CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter
- Thread starter Wizard of OZ
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,490
- Points
- 1,160
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 16,154
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting conversation WRT secret hardware.
Eventually some bright spark on the other side will figure it out , or secret hardware is lost/stolen/shot down and taken. OR a traitor gives it to the enemy.
Like the Atomic bomb. Eventually the USSR would have figured it out, but it was hastened.
Eventually some bright spark on the other side will figure it out , or secret hardware is lost/stolen/shot down and taken. OR a traitor gives it to the enemy.
Like the Atomic bomb. Eventually the USSR would have figured it out, but it was hastened.
armrdsoul77
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 477
- Points
- 930
I mean, you aren't wrong...but nor is Kevin
An enemy like China or Russia will absolutely figure out one's secrets, it's just a matter of time. Whether it's intelligence officers gathering the information in various ways (or have Lockheed use design software linked to the internet...FFS...) or crashed/destroyed tech that can be salvaged & studied, to ELINT & SIGINT (is RADARINT a thing or does that fall under ELINT?) if we use advanced tech with secret stuff in it, it won't stay secret forever.
I don't necessarily agree or accept that the enemy will discover ALL of our secrets, and I don't think that means we'll lose.
If the enemy discovers all of our secrets, we are doing a very shitty job of protecting those secrets.
(Ie, Crypto for military operations is one secret the enemy cannot ever get their hands on, and if they do then a new crypto needs to be adopted by the entire military literally over night...)
- Reaction score
- 8,490
- Points
- 1,160
I accept the rebuke. I was indulging in my usual hyperbole. That happens when I feel that the main points are being lost in the weeds.
Cheers.
armrdsoul77
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 477
- Points
- 930
I feel like I saw this before & meant to reply, but apparently didn't
Not a rebuke at all. I absolutely see your side of it & agree, I also see KevinB's side & agree...
In regard to secret hardware, or hardware that is so bristling with secret tech & capabilities that losing an example of that tech to the enemy would have gross strategic consequences... I find it to be a tricky balance...
On the one hand, those pilots need deployments.
They need those deployments for a variety of reasons (skill proficiency in a contested environment, confirming their platforms are interoperable with other allied assets in the region, AO familiarity, passive use of secret tech against unsuspecting enemy assets, etc etc.)
It's also good in terms of deterrance to one's enemies while reassuring one's allies, ie "Hey Iran, you know those F-35's you keep hearing about? We've got 3 squadrons of them parked near your border...your FAFO factor is hovering at about an 8, you copy?"
But there is a risk in that, and sometimes I find that risk is taken needlessly.
The more we use platforms that have secret capabilities or components during peacetime, the higher the chance of it biting us in the ass during wartime.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,418
- Points
- 1,160
In WWII, gun stabilisers on the Grant/Lee's were so secret, that no one was trained in how to effectively use them or repair them, leading to tankers disconnecting them as useless. Later one unit figured it all out and was credited with a lot more kills thanks to being able to get the first accurate shot off. Then there was a the CDL's , also so secret they barely got used. Where secrecy was good was the D-day landings and the Enigma information.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,799
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 22,862
- Points
- 1,360
Weren’t we told that buying antique Aussie retired Hornets would make things AOK?
- Reaction score
- 1,783
- Points
- 1,060
Can we just stop training for missions that the F-18 is maybe outdated to perform or is that not going to result in even more skill deterioration?
Cause standing up a new sub branch really would solve our problems.....I think the issue is that they using limited flight hours training in roles we are not suitable for, instead of training for the roles we are suitable for. The role we are suitable for may cost more money and more stress issues on the Aircraft so we are taking the easy way out. In doing that we are lacking the skills we would require in real world mission.
Saying all that, we should have bought new Gen 4 fighters that we could have taken delivery on right away, then 60 or so of the 5th gen as they became available. Anyone saying we can not sustain a multi fleet needs to look around at our partners around the world and ask how smaller countries maintain multi fleets?
In 07 when I got out the fighters were in rough shape. Rotating around Airframes to keep hours low, to keep them in the air longer. What they should have done is houred out the frames and put them on the magic healing fence and see if they turned into a new fighter.
- Reaction score
- 22,862
- Points
- 1,360
Or we could have bought 5th gen fighters a decade ago and have them now…
- Reaction score
- 28,743
- Points
- 1,090
You mean early block F35s that can't be upgraded?
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,799
- Points
- 1,260
Do you have an example? I'd have no issue with another fleet that wasn't stationed in Cold lake. Also the issue to manning currently pretty much kills any notion of multi fighter fleets. We can barely keep our heads above water with one fighter fleet.
- Reaction score
- 22,862
- Points
- 1,360
There will always be a newer new things…heck, F-16s are on Block 60 production.
So the proper solution is to wait forever to almost get the absolute latest and greatest?
- Reaction score
- 28,743
- Points
- 1,090
Nah, the solution is to assemble intelligent and persuasive information to convince government to make a decision, and not half ass a sole source.
Oh, and to make sure that the half assed some source proposal doesn't include features that have not been implemented yet as your sole source rationale.
TL;DR put smart people in charge, not a fighter pilot with a pay to play executive MBA.
perhaps if we weren't flying the sopwith camels of the 21st century getting folks to fly wouldn't be such a problem
