Is FLWGs Airvan used for anything specific? Does it have any gear in it, sensors, optics? Or is it just used for hauling people and "stuff"?
It used to have the ARCHER stuff in it I think.
Last time I heard, there were only 2 or 3 Operational ARCHER systems left. The rest have various maintenance issues.
Quote from: PHall on March 21, 2016, 08:54:12 PM
Last time I heard, there were only 2 or 3 Operational ARCHER systems left. The rest have various maintenance issues.
I think the current number is 1 or 2. It's at the point CAP stopped advertising ARCHER.
Quote from: arajca on March 21, 2016, 10:42:09 PM
Quote from: PHall on March 21, 2016, 08:54:12 PM
Last time I heard, there were only 2 or 3 Operational ARCHER systems left. The rest have various maintenance issues.
I think the current number is 1 or 2. It's at the point CAP stopped advertising ARCHER.
That and the fact that the system is obsolete.
I am on the ground side and not familiar with the Air Ops side.
Can anyone elaborate on the Archer issues? What makes it obsolete? What were the issues besides obsolescence?
Thanks.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on March 22, 2016, 12:09:52 AM
I am on the ground side and not familiar with the Air Ops side.
Can anyone elaborate on the Archer issues? What makes it obsolete? What were the issues besides obsolescence?
Thanks.
The company that make the Hyper-spectral Imager went out of business or sold it off to someone else. Subsequently they stopped making that model of imager and it became impossible to get parts at a reasonable cost.
The technology did not pan out as hoped...but the technology and theory behind them are not obsolete.....just the equipment that CAP bought.
It's worth nothing that HSI technology has made leaps and bounds since CAP began using it 10+ years ago.
http://www.bayspec.com/spectroscopy/oci-uav-hyperspectral-camera/ (http://www.bayspec.com/spectroscopy/oci-uav-hyperspectral-camera/)
It is getting cheaper and better, and if CAP ever gets a unified IT group working together, we might be able to provide some proposals on eventually supplanting the current system.
yeah......but here's the rub.
We got burned real bad on the Archer System.
Even with the new tech being better......it is still a lot of up front costs to get the tech out to the field in to meaningful numbers.
And the question is......new toys or new aircraft? And that's a hard one.
It is not like the Ops guys are not aware of the technology available out there.....they all read the trade magazines too. It is the gamble of which one do we buy? How many do we buy? Is this going to turn into a training nightmare? Is the company going to fold they year after we buy 200 units? Is it really going to help our SAR/DR/CD/DHS missions?
You want to be on that committee? >:D :o ;D
And a slightly bigger question. What kind of products do our customers want?
Better pictures? Full motion video? HSI Images?
I've been in LE, SAR disaster relief and aviation for coming up on 15 years. I've nerver heard anyone talk about HSI.
What we use and what commanders want is HD, thermal and video downlink. CAP needs to start reaching out to people in the business and stop going to tech geeks who don't work in that world operationally. That's how you end up with worthless systems like HSI that nobody wants or uses or knows how to interpret.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 22, 2016, 01:34:49 AM
yeah......but here's the rub.
We got burned real bad on the Archer System.
Even with the new tech being better......it is still a lot of up front costs to get the tech out to the field in to meaningful numbers.
And the question is......new toys or new aircraft? And that's a hard one.
It is not like the Ops guys are not aware of the technology available out there.....they all read the trade magazines too. It is the gamble of which one do we buy? How many do we buy? Is this going to turn into a training nightmare? Is the company going to fold they year after we buy 200 units? Is it really going to help our SAR/DR/CD/DHS missions?
You want to be on that committee? >:D :o ;D
Yes, I'd like to be on that committee. I'd like to make sure next time we buy something like this we spend the money on a proper maintenance contract and put in place plans for upgrades as time goes on, along with a mandatory online learning system that can fulfill 90%+ of the training requirements for said program that was readily available.
QuoteFrom Starfleet:
...this we spend the money on a proper maintenance contract and put in place plans for upgrades as time goes on...
Isn't this contrary to CAP fiscal practices? I make this question without checking
CAPR 173, but I do not think there is any way you can do this without entering in contracts that go beyond the fiscal year. Can you sign maintenance contracts to go beyond one year without violating these regs?
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on March 22, 2016, 07:14:13 PM
QuoteFrom Starfleet:
...this we spend the money on a proper maintenance contract and put in place plans for upgrades as time goes on...
Isn't this contrary to CAP fiscal practices? I make this question without checking CAPR 173, but I do not think there is any way you can do this without entering in contracts that go beyond the fiscal year. Can you have fiscal year regs where you can sign maintenance contracts to go beyond one year?
I'm unaware of any rule forbidding contracts spanning the FY. For example, I know that CAP has entered into a contract for the 2017 national conference already, and that's next FY.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on March 22, 2016, 05:49:36 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 22, 2016, 01:34:49 AM
yeah......but here's the rub.
We got burned real bad on the Archer System.
Even with the new tech being better......it is still a lot of up front costs to get the tech out to the field in to meaningful numbers.
And the question is......new toys or new aircraft? And that's a hard one.
It is not like the Ops guys are not aware of the technology available out there.....they all read the trade magazines too. It is the gamble of which one do we buy? How many do we buy? Is this going to turn into a training nightmare? Is the company going to fold they year after we buy 200 units? Is it really going to help our SAR/DR/CD/DHS missions?
You want to be on that committee? >:D :o ;D
Yes, I'd like to be on that committee. I'd like to make sure next time we buy something like this we spend the money on a proper maintenance contract and put in place plans for upgrades as time goes on, along with a mandatory online learning system that can fulfill 90%+ of the training requirements for said program that was readily available.
Which just raises the costs of the new toy all that much.
Like I said......with out getting too deep into the ARCHER fiasco......there is the trade off between gambling on the new tech and keeping with what we know works. A limited budget means that getting something new probably means going with out something else.....and going against the people who want that something else.
Whatever you buy, if you spend more time on preventing people from breaking the new toy, versus training them how to use it,
the new toy stays locked in "Jim's garage", and "Jim's on vacation", which was basically the beginning and end of ARCHER, not to mention
SDIS, and even to GIIEP to a certain extent.
Meanwhile the world is using Periscope connected to $100 UAVs and not caring a wit if they a re "mil-spec".
If there's only one person in the wing who knows how to beam someone to another ship in between the shield generators,
then that's not really a "thing" you should tell people you do.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 22, 2016, 07:23:10 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on March 22, 2016, 05:49:36 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 22, 2016, 01:34:49 AM
yeah......but here's the rub.
We got burned real bad on the Archer System.
Even with the new tech being better......it is still a lot of up front costs to get the tech out to the field in to meaningful numbers.
And the question is......new toys or new aircraft? And that's a hard one.
It is not like the Ops guys are not aware of the technology available out there.....they all read the trade magazines too. It is the gamble of which one do we buy? How many do we buy? Is this going to turn into a training nightmare? Is the company going to fold they year after we buy 200 units? Is it really going to help our SAR/DR/CD/DHS missions?
You want to be on that committee? >:D :o ;D
Yes, I'd like to be on that committee. I'd like to make sure next time we buy something like this we spend the money on a proper maintenance contract and put in place plans for upgrades as time goes on, along with a mandatory online learning system that can fulfill 90%+ of the training requirements for said program that was readily available.
Which just raises the costs of the new toy all that much.
Like I said......with out getting too deep into the ARCHER fiasco......there is the trade off between gambling on the new tech and keeping with what we know works. A limited budget means that getting something new probably means going with out something else.....and going against the people who want that something else.
Perhaps we should have an in depth ARCHER fiasco thread. It's hard to learn lessons if no one is talking about the mistakes in detail.
I thought we already had one
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on March 22, 2016, 07:14:13 PM
QuoteFrom Starfleet:
...this we spend the money on a proper maintenance contract and put in place plans for upgrades as time goes on...
Isn't this contrary to CAP fiscal practices? I make this question without checking CAPR 173, but I do not think there is any way you can do this without entering in contracts that go beyond the fiscal year. Can you sign maintenance contracts to go beyond one year without violating these regs?
I know my Sheriffs Office has that rule. We cant purchase anything that requires multi-year financing beyond the sheriffs 4 yr term. That way if another sheriff comes in, the previous sheriff cant screw them over by financing the new air unit Gulfstream for $55,000,000.00 on his way out the door :) But it could be fun flying it around in the middle of the night hiding it from the bank :)
Edited to type out $55,000,000.00 for the sake of shock and awe
Actually have to admit its a good idea on keeping the financing to a particular Sheriff's term but aren't there legit contracts that have to cross a particular sheriff's term? I would think there would be an instrument of the county government that could have the final say over any contract/expenditure to prevent abuse. I certainly do appreciate the complexity (and I do defer to the experts in my organization in this realm) the of governments and the various "color's of money" and a legal use of a particular block of funds.
On the Gulfstream however I could see a great advantage in traveling to LEO conferences in Las Vegas >:D and possible use it for charter on the side to oh maybe the Caribbean....