DogOnPorch Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Jingo all the way... A fine Lockheed machine @ play. I didn't think there was an aircraft louder than the Concorde...wrong. Edited July 10, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 ...Can’t we all just get along? Yes we can! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cK2EMSUvCc&feature=related Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Waldo prefers us to buy these types instead! In its tanks, the USNS Henry J. Kaiser carried nearly 900,000 gallons of biofuel blended with petroleum to power the cruisers, destroyers and fighter jets of what the Navy has taken to calling the "Great Green Fleet," the first carrier strike group to be powered largely by alternative fuels.Conventionally powered ships and aircraft in the strike group will burn the blend in an operational setting for the first time this month during the 22-nation Rim of the Pacific exercise, the largest annual international maritime warfare maneuvers. The six-week exercise began on Friday. ... Some Republican lawmakers have seized on the fuel's $26-a-gallon price, compared to $3.60 for conventional fuel. They paint the program as a waste of precious funds at a time when the U.S. government's budget remains severely strained, the Pentagon is facing cuts and energy companies are finding big quantities of oil and gas in the United States AP See, waldo and his ilk wouldn't be saying a peep if these F-35s ran on "green energy." And they don't care how many billions are pissed away in the name of it. This new "green fleet" is a great example. Spending $26 dollars per gallon on something that should only cause $3.50 a gallon. Heckuva job waldo! Quote
Guest Derek L Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Waldo prefers us to buy these types instead! See, waldo and his ilk wouldn't be saying a peep if these F-35s ran on "green energy." And they don't care how many billions are pissed away in the name of it. This new "green fleet" is a great example. Spending $26 dollars per gallon on something that should only cause $3.50 a gallon. Heckuva job waldo! In fairness, “Green technology” can have obvious benefits for the military………Pratt & Whitney is developing greater efficiency into their turbofans for aircraft and shipbuilders going towards electric propulsion for warships, coupled with a rebirth of nuclear prower. Obviously greater fuel efficiency translates into greater range and a lessening of the logistic footprint……. Quote
Moonbox Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 No money in Canada? I guess that's why the doctors and nurses left for the "states" too. 30x the scale and money flying around in the USA in terms of aerospace. Private hospitals often pay more. No balls...no blue chips. Yeah it takes huge balls for wealthy politicians to use taxpayer money to make themselves rich and support the companies they own. Anyone not shouting "U-S-A!" while they're at it has no balls... Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
waldo Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 See, waldo and his ilk wouldn't be saying a peep if these F-35s ran on "green energy." And they don't care how many billions are pissed away in the name of it. This new "green fleet" is a great example. Spending $26 dollars per gallon on something that should only cause $3.50 a gallon.Heckuva job waldo! you're so desperate to find the right kind of bait, aren't you lil' buddy? But somehow you just can't, just won't, take these green/clean/global warming/climate change snipes of yours to an appropriate thread... even after being repeatedly chided to do so! Is there a problem for you in doing that, hey? Too visible for your ongoing charade, perhaps? although I hesitate to derail this thread, if you persist - although cleaning your meaningless clock (once again) is hardly worth the effort. In any case, I would have thought by now you could learn to pick your spots just a bit better. You sure you want to attempt to leverage the U.S. military in another of your mindless GOP lapdog parroting efforts? Of course, over several MLW threads, I've taken clear liberties in showcasing just how the U.S. military and intelligence agencies emphasize strategies and policy to adapt within the ever-growing security impacts relative to climate change. I've made reference, several times now, to the significance the U.S. Defense Department places on security and threats relative to climate change (the Quadrennial Defense Review)... as well as to the Annual Threat Assessment given to the U.S. Senate by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence... and the CIA's positioning in regards U.S. national security impacts relative to climate change. Yup, all this strategic analysis, risk assessment and planning... all this concern... from U.S. spooks/military and along you come mindlessly picking up on the idiotic political posturing and campaign politics of U.S. Republicans led by their head climate change denier, U.S. Senator Inhofe. Do you really want to pick your spot over this one... over the USN trialing alternative fuels over one day of the upcoming 22-nation Pacific Rim exercises? Over the cost of $26/per gallon alternative biofuels for a one-day trialing exercise? let's put the appropriate measurables down, hey? The trialing biofuel cost, as implemented in a proposed 50-50 petroleum blend over the one-day trial, will bring the actual deployed cost to ~$15/per gallon. Accuracy, you know. Now, separate from any aspects of fuel security/access/protection within a global military theatre, strictly from an operational fuel use aspect, the U.S. military push for alternate fuels is pure economics. Right now the U.S. Defense Department is reeling under higher fuel costs, leaving it short some $3 billion... during the recent months oil price spike, the USN itself saw a $1 billion additional fuel bill due to the increased cost of conventional petroleum. As it stands, the U.S. military goes through more than 50 million gallons of fuel... monthly! When you add in the tactical and strategic vulnerabilities to this pure operational fuel costing, the U.S. military pursuit is clear - and it's one openly and transparently conveyed within the renewable energy initiative as conveyed within the U.S. Pentagon’s Operational Energy Strategy, itself a response to successive concerns raised within the aforementioned U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Reviews. despite this U.S. Republican led initiated nonsense... and your parroting of same, in recent days the USN (and Energy Department) has snubbed the Congress/Inhofe and moved forward to secure the building of refineries to make competitively priced biofuels. The 'warfighter' clean(er) fuel machine prevails! c'mon Shady - since you're so hyped-up, let's really get into the meat of it. You'll do that in an appropriate thread, right? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 30x the scale and money flying around in the USA in terms of aerospace. Private hospitals often pay more. Private works even for space vehicle launches....see how that works? Yeah it takes huge balls for wealthy politicians to use taxpayer money to make themselves rich and support the companies they own. Anyone not shouting "U-S-A!" while they're at it has no balls... Don't feel too bad....you did get to paste a Canada logo on Canadarm and Canadarm2. Who loves you, baby? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 I've taken clear liberties in showcasing just how the U.S. military and intelligence agencies emphasize strategies and policy to adapt within the ever-growing security impacts relative to climate change. I've made reference, several times now, to the significance the U.S. Defense Department places on security and threats relative to climate change (the Quadrennial Defense Review)... as well as to the Annual Threat Assessment given to the U.S. Senate by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence... Gee...all of that would be great....even relevant, if we were actually discussing US procurement of tactical aircraft, instead of smaller hobby squadrons for Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Don't feel too bad....you did get to paste a Canada logo on Canadarm and Canadarm2. Who loves you, baby? Those arms will also be on the robot army we're secretly building. We're really excited by how our $100B investment into Robo-army (which is almost certain to fail) is going to open up new and exciting opportunities to waste money building Robo-Army #2 (which also won't work) and then even more money on Robo-Army #3. Who knows how many times we'll try and how much money we'll waste. We have to have balls and stick with it! Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
DogOnPorch Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 bc-2004: Who loves you, baby? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Those arms will also be on the robot army we're secretly building. We're really excited by how our $100B investment into Robo-army (which is almost certain to fail).... Well, look at the bright side...at least the LGBT robots will be able to marry each other in Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Well, look at the bright side...at least the LGBT robots will be able to marry each other in Canada. Haven't you seen Terminator? These robots will not be self-determining, for obvious safety reasons. I hope you guys programmed your drones properly... Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Haven't you seen Terminator? Terminator? Why yes...Mr. Cameron (Canadian) directed the U.S. film with a U.S. "Skynet" antagonist and U.S. built "Cyberdyne Model 101", because frankly, who would ever believe they were made in Canada?!? Thank you for proving my point! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle. OK...but that Harley was made in Ontario! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 tick tock, tick tock.the prevailing info I read states the current ruling government will be thrown out; replaced by a coalition. Could that change? Maybe. The U.S. Government/LockMart could also bring additional pressure to bear - you know, like the desperation moves made for Japan & Norway... ya, like that. even if the existing Dutch government were to prevail, the long-standing Defense Minister is on record, in recent days, as stating the intended F-35 procurement number will be much less than the original number; a number which was to simply be a straight replacement, one for one, of their current F-16s. That initial number of ~85 was whittled down to ~40... and with the Defense Minister's comments, what further reduction would result? Again, that presumes on the existing government retaining power... which is stated as most unlikely. Tick tock, tick tock. the official vote count is in: a majority of Dutch parliamentarians voted to halt the purchase of the JSFail F-35... assessments are now being done to determine cost impacts of formal withdrawal from the program. Tick tock, tick tock. Quote
waldo Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 ah yes, the much ballyhooed "stealth" JSFail F-35 capabilities. And yet, voices of reason clamor for attention amongst the grinding wheels of the military machine! Enter, the U.S. Navy... never hesitant to publicly undercut the F-35 in the past; from continuing to place additional orders for F/A-18E and F Super Hornets, to, for all intents and purposes, abandoning the JSFail F-35 by issuing a separate RFI for a new replacement jet fighter. And now along comes the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, speaking 'truth to power' about stealth, further publicly undercutting the F-35: U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert: The Limits of StealthThe rapid expansion of computing power also ushers in new sensors and methods that will make stealth and its advantages increasingly difficult to maintain above and below the water. First, though, military sensors will start to circumvent stealth of surface ships and aircraft through two main mechanisms: • Operating at lower electromagnetic frequencies than stealth technologies are designed to negate, and • Detecting the stealth platform from angles or aspects at which the platform has a higher signature. U.S. forces can take advantage of those developments by employing long-range sensor, weapon, and unmanned-vehicle payloads instead of using only stealth platforms and shorter-range systems to reach targets. Stealth ships and aircraft are designed to have a small radar or infrared electromagnetic signature at specific frequencies. The frequency ranges at which stealth is designed to be most effective are those most commonly used by active radar or passive infrared detection systems. At lower frequencies detections do not normally provide the resolution or precision necessary for accurate targeting. Using more powerful information-processing, however, military forces will be able to develop target-quality data from these lower-frequency passive infrared signals or active-radar returns. The aspects at which stealth platforms are designed to have their smallest signature are those from which detection is most likely. For example, an aircraft or ship is designed to have a small signature or radar return when it is approaching a threat sensor—or has a “nose-on” aspect. Improved computer processing will produce new techniques that can detect stealth platforms at target aspects from which they have higher radar returns. Multiple active radars, for instance, can combine their returns through a battle-management computer so radar detections from a stealth platform’s less-stealthy side, underside, or rear aspect can be shared and correlated to allow the stealth platform to be detected and attacked. Similarly, passive radar receivers can capture the electromagnetic energy that comes from transmitters of opportunity—such as cell-phone or TV towers—and bounces off a stealth platform at a variety of angles. With better processing in the future, those weak, fragmented signals can be combined to create actionable target information. Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons. Maintaining stealth in the face of new and diverse counterdetection methods would require significantly higher fiscal investments in our next generation of platforms. It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems—or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them. ... translation: forgo the F-35 stealth platform money-pit in favour of long-range weaponry and/or electronic-warfare attack. further to the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, highlighting the limitations of stealth balanced against an alternate strategic need to pursue long-range weaponry and/or electronic-warfare attack. U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Ready To Cut Back On F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert's recent article in Proceedings announces in public what many have already known in private: The U.S. Navy is not wholly committed to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Admiral Greenert's controversial -- and, potentially, hugely consequential -- article raises several interesting points, among which is the contention that advances in sensing capabilities and electronic and cyber warfare will increasingly degrade America's stealth arsenal . . . Stealth is not invisibility. As America's adversaries gain new capabilities, they will increasingly be able to find and target our low and very low observable arsenal. In this sense, stealth and counter-stealth technologies are locked in one of the classic struggles of modern warfare: hiders versus finders. As detection technologies become increasingly effective, the stealth capabilities needed to hide become more and more complex, driving up their cost. Admiral Greenert's conclusion is that investing in short-range, stealthy systems may ultimately price the U.S. out of the hiders vs. finders competition; leaving America with very few, very expensive systems. As an alternative, the CNO suggests that stealth is not a silver bullet. But it was never intended to be one in perpetuity. He argues that it may ultimately be more effective to invest in long-range munitions and electronic warfare that could blind enemy sensors, for instance, instead of simply hiding from them. Quote
waldo Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 Do you really want to pick your spot over this one... over the USN trialing alternative fuels over one day of the upcoming 22-nation Pacific Rim exercises? Over the cost of $26/per gallon alternative biofuels for a one-day trialing exercise?let's put the appropriate measurables down, hey? The trialing biofuel cost, as implemented in a proposed 50-50 petroleum blend over the one-day trial, will bring the actual deployed cost to ~$15/per gallon. Accuracy, you know. Now, separate from any aspects of fuel security/access/protection within a global military theatre, strictly from an operational fuel use aspect, the U.S. military push for alternate fuels is pure economics. Right now the U.S. Defense Department is reeling under higher fuel costs, leaving it short some $3 billion... during the recent months oil price spike, the USN itself saw a $1 billion additional fuel bill due to the increased cost of conventional petroleum. As it stands, the U.S. military goes through more than 50 million gallons of fuel... monthly! When you add in the tactical and strategic vulnerabilities to this pure operational fuel costing, the U.S. military pursuit is clear - and it's one openly and transparently conveyed within the renewable energy initiative as conveyed within the U.S. Pentagon’s Operational Energy Strategy, itself a response to successive concerns raised within the aforementioned U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Reviews. despite this U.S. Republican led initiated nonsense... and your parroting of same, in recent days the USN (and Energy Department) has snubbed the Congress/Inhofe and moved forward to secure the building of refineries to make competitively priced biofuels. The 'warfighter' clean(er) fuel machine prevails! c'mon Shady - since you're so hyped-up, let's really get into the meat of it. You'll do that in an appropriate thread, right? along with the aforementioned $420 million initiative by the U.S. Department of Defense to build biofuel refineries for military aircraft/vessels, other recently announced biofuel related pursuits: U.S. Office of Naval Research awards grant to develop a model to characterize alternate fuel properties and performance Obama Administration Announces New Investments to Advance Biofuels Industry and Enhance America’s Energy Security As part of the Obama Administration’s commitment to deploying every available source of American energy and reducing our reliance on imported oil, U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced new funding available to pursue new innovations in biofuels technologies, increase production of U.S. biofuels, and strengthen American energy security. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Navy and Department of Energy are announcing $30 million in federal funding to match private investments in commercial-scale advanced drop-in biofuels. The Energy Department is also announcing a total of $32 million in new investments for earlier stage research that will continue to drive technological breakthroughs and additional cost reductions in the industr Quote
GostHacked Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 Unless these F-35s can be equipped to be flown remotely, then I say we don't need them. One goal for the US military over the past 30 years has been to remove the human pilot from the physical craft. Why do you think the military spends all sorts of money on these drones? The day's of the human pilot in fighter aircraft are numbered. Quote
waldo Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 Unless these F-35s can be equipped to be flown remotely, then I say we don't need them. One goal for the US military over the past 30 years has been to remove the human pilot from the physical craft.Why do you think the military spends all sorts of money on these drones? The day's of the human pilot in fighter aircraft are numbered. drone baby, drone! Over the last several months, Northrop Grumman, a U.S.-based defence and aeronautics company, has been lobbying Canadian officials with an innovative proposal for safeguarding the sovereignty of our Arctic territory and the security of our northern coastal approaches. Northrop Grumman proposes to sell Canada modified Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles — drones — which would provide Canada with constant real-time monitoring capability over a huge swath of our territory that is currently only patrolled by any occasional flypast by an Air Force plane or by Canadian Rangers on snow mobiles. The modified drones, dubbed Polar Hawks by the company, would be able to stay in the air for up to 30 hours at a time. They would be equipped with a variety of cameras and electronic sensors. Canadian military personnel would operate them remotely from anywhere in the country, staying in touch with the drones via satellite. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 drone baby, drone! Am I missing something here, Waldo? You are suggesting that we should have the capability to watch intruders, while not having the capability of doing anything about it? Please correct me if I misunderstood your post. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Moonbox Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 He's suggesting that we have long range patrol drones survey Arctic Canada, so at least there's a presence there. Our lack of recon makes it really difficult for Canada to know what's going on and therefore support sovereignty claims. To be clear, however, drones would be useless in an interdiction roll, and we would still need fighter craft for that roll. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 .... To be clear, however, drones would be useless in an interdiction roll, and we would still need fighter craft for that roll. No, to be really clear, "drones" can engage and destroy targets. Just ask Omar Khadr. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 No, to be really clear, "drones" can engage and destroy targets. Just ask Omar Khadr. The Global Hawk? The drone we're talking about? Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 The Global Hawk? The drone we're talking about? But you said "drones"...not Global Hawk. Nevertheless, GH has several ISR capabilities that includes real time target data, active and passive countermeasures, active EW, etc. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.