F35 Lightning.....

[gileraguy]

Can't fly within 25nm of an active thunderstorm. They may want to re-think the name of this lemon...

ABC Four Corners questions Australia's acquisition process of the F35.

Senator John Hills 2002 estimated unit cost of $40 Million a shown as a massive guestimate.

Canadian acquisition of F35 accused of being undemocratic. Canada Reconsidering the purchase of any F35s.

Lockheed Software engineer rewarded for discovering software issues, then transferred to another department. Lockheed GM "no comment"

Air Power Australia represented as being uninformed of capabilities of the F35, as explanation of their predicted massive losses of F35s in war game simulations against Chinese F 35s.

The F35 has failed to deliver performance requirements and looks like it never will meet these specifications.

See ABC iview for this crucial story on the F35.

[Jack Ranga]

:ouch:

Oh dear...........Four Corners tonight, it'll be repeated.

So will the Super Hornet become the next F111, in service for over 50 years because there's nothing better?

[Sunfish]

Lockheed are very very good at one thing and one thing only these days: Extracting money from the taxpayer.

Do you know that Lockheed always sues for damages if it loses a contract - as a matter of corporate policy?

[SgtBundy]

Given the way more advanced drones are coming up, they might not have to hang out that long. That said, its a decent enough aircraft for a core of our needed capabilities for our defence.

I had this argument with a mate the other day. It seems pretty obvious to any outside observers that the F-35 is over promised, over priced and under performing (crippled stealth, poor performance, compromises to support the B and C models). If it smells like marketing....

The telling thing is the way the decision was made, no evaluation, no tender, just sign up to make the US happy. Hardly seems like we would get bang for buck if we only buy uncle sam and they know it. If the flankers (especially the new PAK-FA versions) are going to be so good and covering the whole region, why not take up a license to build Aus Flankers here, we could have 150 of them with money to spare instead of the F-35s plus a home industry. I know it would never happen as a US ally, but its certainly a better cost option.

That said, has their been a weapons program since WW2 that did not have significant cost blowouts, overhyped delivery and late completion? Is this just special because its the biggest one yet?

[The Green Goblin]

Seems to me the suits running aerospace companies all have something in common.

They have no idea.

It's all dollars, cents and stocks to them.

[jas24zzk]

Why wouldn't it happen? the yanks bought some fulcrums to help the russian economy a few years back.



For the politicians, the JSF sign up wasn't about an in depth analysis about capability, it was about securing jobs here in oz....even if we only building the pilots pee tube, and access to technology for use by australian companies.

I'm not convinced this is right or wrong, just merely pointing out that your observations governing the decision making process may be a little skewed. Keep in mind how slow our politicians were to sign for an actual order.

Sure i'd love to see us with a bunch of SU-30 MKK's, great bloody aeroplane, built russian tough, but the JSF program actually shows some government interest in aircraft manufacturing capabilty in oz. Pity about their thoughts on aviation management...but i digress somewhat.

The beaurocratic bullshoe surrounding our defence air decisions is well documented....maybe in view of the guvmints manufacturing desires, we would have been better purchasing the rights to the Caribous design and modernising it......at least we'd have that capability NOW, and over this summer we have needed it!

Enjoy...i'm off to watch the walking dead :eek:

Jas

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

So will the Super Hornet become the next F111, in service for over 50 years because there's nothing better?

The F111 entered service with the USAF in 1967 and the RAAF in 1973! I'll give you 40 yrs but not 50.

Dr

[Jack Ranga]

Ahhhhh, but who'd argue that it couldn't do 50 years? ;)

[The The]

Should have bought the Iranian stealth fighter:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/12/article-2277412-1787700E000005DC-548_634x286.jpg

Fake Stealth Fighter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2277412/Fake-stealth-plane-Irans-Photoshopped-fighter-jet-spotted-air.html)

[ozaggie]

Dunno about the fighter, but most of what comes out of the interviewers mouth is dribble put there by LC and SLIC. how reliable is that?

[Jabawocky]

From the limited, but expert opinion I hear, the JSF will eventually be a success.

If one thinks back far enough other great aircraft went through he same process.

Storm in teacup story.

[Jobear]

Sure it will be great after it kills pilots and gouges the respective governments for several hundred billion more. look at the development costs of the last 4 fighters bought online in the USA. I don't even want to mention the abortion that is called Osprey.

Spend the money on building the economy independent of the Military Industrial Complex.

[601]

ABC Four Corners questions Australia's acquisition process of the F35.

I seem to remember the ABC dumping s**t on the F111.

[Zapatas Blood]

The f-35, F-22 and Osprey have had massive cost over runs and major delays. The f-35 delay so far is perhaps just the beginning. The senate is starting to see that some versions may be as late as 20 years or more!!!!

They epitomise the military industrial complex and are more effective at draining the public purse than actually achieving their design goal.

Tax payers in Canada, Aus,UK and USA should be up in arms but we are too passive.

[4Greens]

How do you use a touch screen when you are pulling 6g??

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Seems to me the suits running aerospace companies all have something in common.

They have no idea.

It's all dollars, cents and stocks to them.

Ummm, why are they in business? Why is anyone in business? Making quality/cheap fighter planes is not the number 1 reason.

More pertinent question is to ask why our government allows itself to get into this situation. The aerospace companies (like most defence companies) have to play the silly games invented by pollies and organisations like DMO. In this case, with no competitive tender - why does anyone think we'd get anything that remotely represented value?

[Deaf]

Shamelessly stolen from another forum

Australia's negotiating ability seems to run along the lines of"
Seller: "That will be $1 billion".
Australia: "Will you take $1.5 billion?"
Seller: "Uh ok"
Australia: "What about $2 billion and can you make sure it doesn't work as well?"

Pretty well sums up defence procurement

[baswell]

It's a flying computer program. Are we getting the source code? No? NEXT!

[baswell]

Tax payers in Canada, Aus,UK and USA should be up in arms but we are too passive.
I never understand why military projects get away with that.

Award a contract to build new submarines to the same mob that built the last ones you're not happy about: not a word.

Buy an unproven aircraft without tender process and with costs skyrocketing and serious reservations about its performance: not a word.

Build a broadband network for less money than either of them, one with a (admittedly long) return on investment and useful all the time to just about every Australian: WHAT A WASTE, IT WILL KILL THE ECONOMY WHAT SOCIALIST STATE WE'VE BECOME WE WILL ALL BE DIRT POOR SOON!!!! :ugh:

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Why wouldn't it happen? the yanks bought some fulcrums to help the russian economy a few years back.

W.T.F? :eek:

What they actually did was buy a few MiG-29s from Moldova to avoid them possibly falling into the hands of an undesirable third party country. They then stripped them down, studied the hell out of them, and put a few back together to practice against.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

I seem to remember the ABC dumping s**t on the F111. :confused:

Me too, yet according to last night's effort they were "fabled"! :D:hmm:

[rover5520]

@deaf
Very well put,a mob of total suckers,these military purchasing people!

[in-cog-nito]

I seem to remember the ABC dumping s**t on the F111.This is history repeating itself.
Same thing happen when they bought the F-111. It wasn't ready. The Canberra was getting old and Indonesia were getting some whizz-bang russian thing of the day.
So we had the F-4E for a couple of years as fill in.

[aroa]

..I'm just amazed that so much money is signed away in secret by little Johnnie brown nose, just like the decision to go into Iraq.
Where's the due process?, tendering? any Parliamentry debate or democratic process? WTF??? Any angry taxpayers?? Hullo???

This is the NBN of the skies.!! FFS.

Have a read of the Wiki articles..Loved the bit where probs were solved with the computer stuff during maintenance by shutting down and restarting. That might not be an option for the pilot when the ONE engine craps out at 300 ft. No time to reboot the whole system due to gravity.

I'm sure the Lockheed shareholders wont mind if we prang a few (dozen), good for business at the latest price of $180Mil, due cutback in sales numbers.

And hasnt Canada just confirmed, due to a similar bs purchase/decision debacle, and the hideous cost.. that "we're outa here."
So should we.

Snake oil salesman dont just work for Big Pharma, they work for the US Military Industrial Complex as well.

And look to something with TWO engines, better range and payload..OR if you want to leave the heavy hitting to the Super Hornets and Growlers...there are plenty of agile fighters to choose from.
And certainly at a much better cost benefit. No need to bankrupt the country with 100 !:eek: F35s..PLUS spare parts. My Dog! $quillions.
Oh sorry, we already are in serious deficit.
Never mind ...make it 15 submarines as well.:sad:

[baswell]

How do you use a touch screen when you are pulling 6g??
How do you twist knobs and flip switches at 6G in a Hornet? ;)

I am going to take a wild stab in the dark here and assume the stick and throttle still have plenty of buttons and switches on them. :ok:

[500N]

"This is the NBN of the skies.!! FFS."

I like that, very good indeed :O :ok:

[aroa]

very pleased to hear that...but the cost???
For that sort of dosh, it had better work, too.
Being (dumb) and happy with what Ive got..not sure I can afford twice the speed for quadruple the cost or whatever.

With techo stuff advancing so rapidly...like the camera you buy today is already "obsolete"...next model around the corner, etc. Same with aircraft electronics and systems, no doubt.
So when are we going to get them, to fly/play with then..??
And I'm sure the boys and girls in blue will give it their best shot to stop them coming back to earth wrongly...as they do.

Dopey OZ should be putting $$s into agile, fighter UAVs..using the excellent techo skills of the smart electronics and aeronautical folk who do exist in this country. Buy Australian! Innovate.? Que?
Oh sorry, we're just a little ally, here take our money :{
Are the F 35s something we just have to have...regardless of the cost.?
IMHO..NO

[Jack Ranga]

When I walked through Udvar-Hazy I looked at the payload and thought 'you are kidding right?' A GFPT doing a BAK test would quickly work out it's the C172 of fighter aircraft.

It looks like smoke & mirrors to me. It's an awesome looking machine from front on, but as every horny 18 year old dood quickly finds out, looks ain't everything :cool:

[SgtBundy]

Re: NBN - the major cost of putting in the NBN is laying fibre that we can continually upgrade as optical technology improves. Think of it as a national highway that we can multiply the speed limit and lanes by 10, simply by replacing the traffic lights at either end. In time the uses and capabilities will be used, even if right now it seems overkill for downloading cat pictures.

My gut feel on the F-35 is its going to be lacking capability for a long time and really not the right platform for us. Simply down to its load out capability, range and being a single engine platform for our wide terrain. Not to mention we don't get the full stealth capability. I am not even sure there is a good option to select right now, but I think the fact we have not seriously evaluated that question is disturbing. For the amounts of money we will be throwing at it, I would have thought we would think long and hard about what we want because we don't buy fighters that often.

Also with Four Corners, I think they had the same dump on the new guy when the decision for the super hornets was announced. They had the same air power guys showing how because we no longer had the F-111s we would lose any air war as soon as our tankers were shot down, and that the hornets lacked the range, speed and load for long range strikes. At any rate they seem to like letting Air Power Australia have a say on how bad the DOD is at picking planes.

[Typhoon650]

Cancel the contract. Buy F-16's for air defence and A-10's for ground support.
Should save plenty and have two very good, cheap and serviceable aircraft.

[Shagpile]

Man, the F111 could have lasted at least 100 years longer.

What we really need is an A10 and some F16's for our air defence.

[SgtBundy]

We should have got the F-14s while we had the chance....

<queue "Danger Zone" theme>

[Shagpile]

siwpn14IE7E

[SgtBundy]

Ahhh... thats the stuff... :ok:

Actually we should get some MiG-28s... I hear they are stealth, no one gets that close to them.

[gileraguy]

I never noticed Cruise has "old man hands" before...

They must be really gnarly by now!

[Stikybeke]

Courtesy of Foxtell, I just watched the 4 corners show about this aircraft. How do we continually get ourselves into this mess. I mean really? I know that this is probably not the place to raise these issues but like you all, I'm a tax payer.

For example, how is it that we will have an RF22 displaying at Avalon and a Caribou (rumoured) that we don't even use any more....but no JSF35?

I think I might know the answer if what I saw is correct. Damm it!. I think that I'm becoming I'm so easily influenced these days by what I see on TV that it's starting to scare me.

I shake my head!

Stiky
:ugh:

[BombsGone]

I'd take what you see on 4 corners about military matters with a grain of salt. I seem to remember a beat up on the replacement of the F111 with the Super Hornet, a decision both Air Force and the Government now seem very happy with. I recall Labor being up in arms about it until they got into power, were briefed on the project, and then went very quiet. It's very easy to find people with an axe to grind who are against any major capital acquisition.

[18-Wheeler]

Courtesy of Foxtell, I just watched the 4 corners show about this aircraft. How do we continually get ourselves into this mess. I mean really? I know that this is probably not the place to raise these issues but like you all, I'm a tax payer.

Agreed.
I can't see why we simply don't equip ourselves with the gear suitable to combat any expected enemy. And let's face it, they are only likely to have ageing Migs or maybe Sukhoi's at best. So something like the F-18's we already have and good pilot training & avionics & backup should be more than enough.

[Jabawocky]

18w

That is fine for today, but these things are a 2020-2040 deal. We sit on our hands, we will be the force like the one you describe next.

I do wonder why we have no carrier capability too. Or do we rely on Uncle Sam too much:hmm:

[Sunfish]

What concerns me is a little matter called "Operational Sovereignty", my understanding is that we lose it with the F35 and I'm not sure we have it with the super F18 either.

Operational sovereignty means the ability to use the aircraft for Australias purposes without the need to obtain permission from the U.S.A. This includes the ability to modify the aircraft and more importantly its software.

We had this ability with the original F18, I don't believe we will have it with the F35, and in addition I believe we wont be doing any maintenance on it either - we sign a contract with Lockheed for that. In other words, if the U.S.A. doesn't like the idea of us using the aircraft, it will just stop working.

[Lookleft]

Sunny we didn't have it with the Mirage either! The French wouldn't provide spares for the Mirage if Australia sent them to Vietnam even though it would've been the perfect aircraft to counter the MiGs.

[Shagpile]

This includes the ability to modify the aircraft and more importantly its software.

Noooooo....

I just heard a thousand pilots cry out in protest, then silence. Every "Australianise" project I've ever heard of has #fail stamped all over it.

[TBM-Legend]

How will we crew these aircraft anyway? I heard that the Australia Day flypast in Canberra was with four Hawks because Ronnie couldn't raise a flight of Hornets due crew and aircraft availability. Also heard that 77 has only 8 pilots right now!:confused:

[baswell]

I just heard a thousand pilots cry out in protest, then silence. Every "Australianise" project I've ever heard of has #fail stamped all over it.
Maybe not start tinkering right now, but the ability to debug when Uncle Sam loses interest in us would be nice!

Not to mention looking for back doors designed for 'murica to be able to disable them in case a now friendly country they sell them to goes rogue.

[Capn Bloggs]

for 'murica to be able to disable them in case a now friendly country they sell them to goes rogue.
If the Greens win the election in 2020?? :}

Just watched 4 cnrs; if an aircraft looks nice, it flies nice. That thing certainly ain't a nice-looking lady! :{ As evidenced by the jet jockey being interviewed after a flight, who sounded very much like he was really saying "this thing's a dog!"

PS: Thought I'd read the rest of the thread and found this pearler:

It's actually twice the speed for the same price. Remember there is no additional line rental, so compare NBN plan prices to "naked ADSL" services.
So where's the $43,000,000,000 fit into "the same price" picture? :)

[500N]

"if the U.S.A. doesn't like the idea of us using the aircraft, it will just stop working."


We are in a slightly better position than some countries in that we have
some nice white domes and other equipment that are very important to
the US, but I agree, not a good situation to be in.

[PLovett]

What the US wants, the US will get when it comes to Australia. This country is so scared of shadows that it will leap into the arms of anyone who it thinks will protect them. So long as we don't have to commit much in the way of resources to any foreign nastiness unless we absolutely have to. Our commitment to Vietnam was minimal as was Iraq and Afghanistan given the stated reasons for how important it was/is for us to be there in the first place.

As a consequence we will continue to get shafted. The navy wanted a German fire control system for its Collins class submarines but that would not have been compatible with the US system (after all, the US had plans to use the Collins class subs in the shallow waters of the Straits of Taiwan when it came to fisticuffs with the PRC) so pressure was put in the appropriate places and a US fire control system was installed thereby leading to most of that platforms problems.

The US didn't want Australia to have some vital software for the FA-18 at one stage until it was lifted from under their noses. But now the US really wants us to have the F-35, otherwise they may have to bail out LM as they cut back their own order. In the end the order will proceed unless the whole program is canned and that is not likely, just a redrawing of the specs for its capability. At the end of the day the US is far more important to Australia that Australia is to the US so we won't upset them no matter what.

[Stikybeke]

Given after the excellent service re the Mirage 111 it is good to see that we went back to France again and bought some helicopters for the Army. I can just imagine the sales pitch:

Aus: $30 million each if we buy in bulk? But it doesn't have airconditioning...

Fr: This is no problem, you can do your training in France where it does not get hot or if flying in Australia or other country where it is sometimes hot just do not fly the hot day!

Aus: But there are fumes in the cockpit..

Fr: This is no problem, open the little window and do the sideslip, the air will soon clear provided you have the height..do not try this at the low level.

Aus: But we fly at low level alot.

Fr: This is no problem provided you fly the low level with the height.

Aus: But what if the window jams..

Fr: This is no problem, we have the exploding canopy for just an occasion, be sure your helmet is well fastened if doing the canopy jettison.

Aus: Will the oleos break?

Fr: This is no problem, be sure to only land your helicopter on the runways or tarmac areas, avoid all paddocks and rocky places. There is no need to land on such places in any case, that is why the oleos are like the woman. They need to have the caring about.

Aus: What about spares?

Fr: This is no problem, we have plenty of spare spares in France. Ring me and we will send, you can pay when you receive.

I wonder if they make submarines?

Stiky
:D

[Andy_RR]

Sure, the NBN is over-priced and gold-plated, but it is essential and will rock.

Over-priced and gold-plated it is, but essential it certainly isn't. What productivity gains will it offer to justify its enormous price tag, that our existing system can't deliver?

High data rates is largely about transmission of video, so what we're paying $quillions for is to be able to sit on our collective arses and watch more ****e in sparkly HD!

As any shrewd businessman will tell you, acquisition cost of capital equipment is everything in staying competitive. Pay over the odds for your hardware and the smarter competition will run rings around you!

[nitpicker330]

The ABC show was another politically inspired media beat up.

We ( me included ) know absolutely nothing about the F35 and its capabilities and if you think you do you are dreaming.

Lockheed Martin are an aerospace leader with an amazing list of successful Military Aircraft built over the years:--

F22
C5A
C141
F104
U2
SR71
F117
P3
C130

Etc etc etc.

Not to mention Missles, Ships and the SKUNK WORKS....

They may just have an idea what they are doing....:ok:

Lockheed Martin · Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us.html)

[nitpicker330]

Not to mention a big bunch of those Aircraft were winners of Collier Trophies:-

Lockheed Martin · Collier Trophies (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/aeronautics/skunkworks/CollierTrophies.html)

[Captain Sand Dune]

It's still only got one engine.

[gassed budgie]

It's still only got one engine

Indeed it does. I'm sure that LM eventually will get the software problems sorted and also all of the other technical issues that they seem to be having trouble with at the moment.
Having said that, I'm not sure that the aircraft will meet it's performance targets as originally set out by LM themselves. It's supposed to be a one size fits all, multirole aircraft suited to the USAF, the USMC and the USN, not to mention all of the foreign buyers that have signed up to the program.
In other words, it will fulfil a variety of roles to a satisfactory level without being outstanding in any one particular area because of the compromises that have been made in order fit in with the differing requirements of various military organisations.
The only reservation that I have with the aircraft, is that when it boils right down to it, the airframe/engine combination is simply, physically to small to carry out some of the roles asked of it. You can only do so much with a relatively small single engine airframe. The defence minister recently suggested that an F-35 would be able to deliver the same amount of ordinance that an F-111 was capable of. I very much doubt that.
The most successful fighter aircraft in history was eventually compromised to some degree by it's tiny airframe and proved to be more than a little vulnerable in carrying out some of the tasks asked of it. Hopefully the F-35 won't end up in the same place.

[baswell]

Pay over the odds for your hardware and the smarter competition will run rings around you!
What competition? :) Nobody else is going to run another piece of fibre to your house. The NBN is installing the next 100 years of communications infrastructure. Future generations will thanks us for it.

[Romulus]

Fixed communications in a mobile world.

Wonderful.

Far better if we had used that money to commercialise CSIRO technology to create not just a staggeringly good mobile network but also a multi billion dollar export business with associated hi tech related jobs.

[Andy_RR]

What competition? :) Nobody else is going to run another piece of fibre to your house. The NBN is installing the next 100 years of communications infrastructure. Future generations will thanks us for it.

How about considering our international competitiveness? It's enough of a joke already without asking the populace to pay for (and they will, either way!) expensive toys with little productivity upside...

[baswell]

Fixed communications in a mobile world.
Wireless hasn't got a hope in hell to ever provide enough bandwidth to homes and businesses. It's fun for being on the go, but unless you want a cell tower on every street corner, it's not going to work; the more people jump on it, the less bandwidth anyone gets. And running fibre is much cheaper than cell towers on every street corner.

I hate to say it, but "we should use wireless" is the single most ignorant argument in the NBN debate and show a complete lack of technological and internet business understanding. Even the LNP seems to have stopped using it.

How about considering our international competitiveness?
Spending 1% of our annual budget for 10 years to implement a network that will last a century and will pay for itself through subscriber revenue is going to hurt our "international competitiveness"? Really?

About 21% of GDP goes to taxes goes to taxes in Australia. Out of the 1% of the budget, it would mean a 0.21% decrease in tax burden if we scrapped it. Imagine how much more competitive Australian pricing could be if we saved businesses that much money!

[Deaf]

Spending 1% of our annual budget for 10 years to implement a network that will last a century and will pay for itself through subscriber revenue

That is merely the drivel from worthless parasites in Canberra. Anything that comes from there is rubbish.

[Virtually There]

Agreed.
I can't see why we simply don't equip ourselves with the gear suitable to combat any expected enemy. And let's face it, they are only likely to have ageing Migs or maybe Sukhoi's at best. So something like the F-18's we already have and good pilot training & avionics & backup should be more than enough.
If Indonesia's the main threat - which it is and has been in the past - then you may be right.

But if the new threat on the horizon is China and its expanding influence throughout the region, then no amount of F-18s is going to save us. Unless they're squadrons of USAF F-18s (or some other type) - and even then, the US may or may not have the military capability to beat China in its own back yard in 20-30 years time.

[baswell]

http://i.imgur.com/iToOcwF.jpg

[OZBUSDRIVER]

As for the F35...a prediction. We will never see this frame operational in Australia, nor the Tiger, or the MRH90....EVER!

We are going to have to have a serious shakeup in DSTO to stop them picking up garbage and telling us otherwise. There is a beer coaster somewhere on this planet that two guys did a deal over beers and we ended up with the C17. That beer coaster carried more than enough info to do the deal compared to an entire department of self important egg-heads.

I'm off to Port Phillip Bay to see my wasted tax money at work. Another stupid purchase...wonder if they can deploy sticks of paratroopers out the side doors yet without turning them to mush. Trash haulers when we needed tactical ships. The H is gone and we have nothing to replace it.

[SgtBundy]

For the types of compute power mentioned for the F-35 I would expect it has to be fibre optic - all the remote target sharing, video feeds, airframe signalling etc. Its not like its a rare technology and not been used before. Its also far less likely to be affected by EMP and leak RF energy than miles of copper wiring which has to be good for a combat aircraft. You would have to think the first thing they do when planning the avionics is ensure they can design redundancy, but then again....

I seem to recall in my AIRTC days the RAAF firetrucks even had fibre optics in them to connect remote cameras and the like, so if the trucks on the ground can do it you would hope for the costs of a F-35 they plant some.

[baswell]

For the types of compute power mentioned for the F-35 I would expect it has to be fibre optic.
It certainly doesn't have to be; from a bandwidth perspective, gigabit ethernet would handle the job just fine. Relative to other aircraft, the F-35 no doubt has a lot of computer power. Compared to a couple of your average PC gamer's rigs - I doubt it.

Fibre would be lighter and lighter still would be the lack of needing to shield it, so that would be a good reason to use it between components.

[baswell]

PS: Remember that the F-35 (and most aviation systems in general) have a very different computer architecture than PCs.

The radar and other sensors, for instance, will have a huge amount of data to crunch, but they do so inside their own box with specialised digital signal processors. (DSPs) What they then send out the rest of the network is fairly low bandwidth; a lowly serial cable would likely suffice.