Comments on: Killer Drone, Dead; New Bomber Lives http://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/killer-drone-dead-new-bomber-lives/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:08:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: adfafohttp://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/killer-drone-dead-new-bomber-lives/comment-page-1/#comment-194825 adfafo Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:28:45 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3031#comment-194825 Is the best :Competition alone or togther with ........... 01Qj2 Is the best :Competition alone or togther with .….……

01Qj2

]]> By: timothyhttp://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/killer-drone-dead-new-bomber-lives/comment-page-1/#comment-44429 timothy Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:23:20 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3031#comment-44429 i hes in the air force have a plane that is made in mlectricity because of the ultraviolet rays in the light going in the get still gets through you save eronger less work more time for study but does nasa work out i heardthat nasa might be able to make a light bulb that can if you put a solarpanel seethrough on the glass part of the i do not have a url correctly dont have the time but send me an email of something lakers game go celtics babyand thats it and a number for yall to look at is this one 230848 ifthe satellite or submarinos tacos shop craiglight bulb collect energyt from the ultra violet rays i made it first but in my mind and this is the thing if the lighellite and the power grid gets sttricity in a aircraift a spacecrat and its air forces missle that goes up their to their own satell cnn we want you to play our new story of out new satellite mini but durable a secret type of energy could be the same one and maybe its to go to mars and could do so but on the way drop out a magnettop secret i know peace or lasers yeah but your new one can take the metal off their satellite and fix your own how many sources of energy do you have in space for elecbut say german was against you and you had to take out their satellites in space and you say nasa on the news tonight and t maybe peep this a rat in space to jump from your sattellite to take out someone elses if needed robotic rats are back and it is manned by nasa at thhe california locationanistan it lokes brokedown but it has alot of taps the kind that can crawl back in if thrown out orle in afghxico for saerd that you guys and gala i hes in the air force have a plane that is made in mlectricity because of the ultraviolet rays in the light going in the get still gets through you save eronger less work more time for study but does nasa work out i heardthat nasa might be able to make a light bulb that can if you put a solarpanel seethrough on the glass part of the i do not have a url correctly dont have the time but send me an email of something lakers game go celtics babyand thats it and a number for yall to look at is this one 230848 ifthe satellite or submarinos tacos shop craiglight bulb collect energyt from the ultra violet rays i made it first but in my mind and this is the thing if the lighellite and the power grid gets sttricity in a aircraift a spacecrat and its air forces missle that goes up their to their own satell cnn we want you to play our new story of out new satellite mini but durable a secret type of energy could be the same one and maybe its to go to mars and could do so but on the way drop out a magnettop secret i know peace or lasers yeah but your new one can take the metal off their satellite and fix your own how many sources of energy do you have in space for elecbut say german was against you and you had to take out their satellites in space and you say nasa on the news tonight and t maybe peep this a rat in space to jump from your sattellite to take out someone elses if needed robotic rats are back and it is manned by nasa at thhe california locationanistan it lokes brokedown but it has alot of taps the kind that can crawl back in if thrown out orle in afghxico for saerd that you guys and gala

]]> By: glennhttp://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/killer-drone-dead-new-bomber-lives/comment-page-1/#comment-120874 glenn Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:12:49 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3031#comment-120874 Interestingly, BAE just unveiled a UCAV dubbed "CORAX." At the same time, Jane's reports "the UK has terminated plans for a future manned combat aircraft and is working closely with the US on 'Project Churchill'," which focuses on the "the joint, airborne command and control of pilotless combat air vehicles from 2015 onwards". So... U.S. cancels a UCAV programm and announces plans for a new bomber. Meanwhile, the U.K. cancels a new-manned plane, announces a UCAV program and indicates its will be working closely with the U.S. in the arena of unmanned flight. Could it be that budget pressures and politics are pushing the U.S. and U.K. to cooperate and share development costs of new aircraft? Interestingly, BAE just unveiled a UCAV dubbed “CORAX.” At the same time, Jane’s reports “the UK has terminated plans for a future manned combat aircraft and is working closely with the US on ‘Project Churchill’,” which focuses on the “the joint, airborne command and control of pilotless combat air vehicles from 2015 onwards”.
So… U.S. cancels a UCAV programm and announces plans for a new bomber. Meanwhile, the U.K. cancels a new-manned plane, announces a UCAV program and indicates its will be working closely with the U.S. in the arena of unmanned flight.
Could it be that budget pressures and politics are pushing the U.S. and U.K. to cooperate and share development costs of new aircraft?

]]> By: campbellhttp://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/killer-drone-dead-new-bomber-lives/comment-page-1/#comment-120873 campbell Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:39:11 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3031#comment-120873 Ah, no...you'll note; I wrote "what they CAN be"...not what they are touting. You are correct, "walrus" is NOT Lighter-than-Air, nor solar; and, given their entrenched, stupid stranglehold on using fabrics or laminates for hull materials, yeah, they'd still need a hanger. It is typical the(airship)-world-is-flat-and-this-is-the-way-we've-always-done-it-before stuff. (Clue: if it looks like a blimp and "flies" like a blimp and wallows around in the sky like a blimp, it's probably.....a blimp. And worth about seventeen cents on a good day, and if it still needs a runway (WALRUS AND EVERY OTHER "HYBRID"), it's worth less than that. taken down with triple? nah. first you gots to SEE em, then you gots to put enough into em to bring em down, and you can only do that if they sit still and LET you....... Ah, no…you’ll note; I wrote “what they CAN be”…not what they are touting. You are correct, “walrus” is NOT Lighter-than-Air, nor solar; and, given their entrenched, stupid stranglehold on using fabrics or laminates for hull materials, yeah, they’d still need a hanger. It is typical the(airship)-world-is-flat-and-this-is-the-way-we’ve-always-done-it-before stuff.
(Clue: if it looks like a blimp and “flies” like a blimp and wallows around in the sky like a blimp, it’s probably.….a blimp. And worth about seventeen cents on a good day, and if it still needs a runway (WALRUS AND EVERY OTHER “HYBRID”), it’s worth less than that.
taken down with triple? nah. first you gots to SEE em, then you gots to put enough into em to bring em down, and you can only do that if they sit still and LET you.……

]]> By: Murchttp://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/killer-drone-dead-new-bomber-lives/comment-page-1/#comment-120872 Murc Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:16:07 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3031#comment-120872 Well, that was pretty and all...But I think ya lied a bit there Campbell. The Walrus is not a light-then-air Airship, its a Heavier-then-air Airship, meaning without engines its going nowhere, and engines use fuel, as well as produce heat. And they would need a hanger to do major clean-ups & overhauls...but for the better part of there life they shouldn't need one. They can be shot down by triple, regardless if its stealthy...but as far as I know the WALRUS isn't going to be stealthy...i might be wrong on that one though. Also (to the best of my knowledge) it is not have solar panels on it, so it wont be powered by the sun. I think your taking the best traits from two separate Airships...and combining them into one. Meaning: WALRUS & HAA Well, that was pretty and all…But I think ya lied a bit there Campbell.
The Walrus is not a light-then-air Airship, its a Heavier-then-air Airship, meaning without engines its going nowhere, and engines use fuel, as well as produce heat. And they would need a hanger to do major clean-ups & overhauls…but for the better part of there life they shouldn’t need one.
They can be shot down by triple, regardless if its stealthy…but as far as I know the WALRUS isn’t going to be stealthy…i might be wrong on that one though. Also (to the best of my knowledge) it is not have solar panels on it, so it wont be powered by the sun.
I think your taking the best traits from two separate Airships…and combining them into one.
Meaning: WALRUS & HAA

]]> By: Jerome E. Goodwin Sr.http://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/killer-drone-dead-new-bomber-lives/comment-page-1/#comment-44424 Jerome E. Goodwin Sr. Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:02:24 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3031#comment-44424 How much did J-UCAS make by not having to produce any drones I wonder? How much did J-UCAS make by not having to produce any drones I wonder?

]]> By: Campbellhttp://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/killer-drone-dead-new-bomber-lives/comment-page-1/#comment-120871 Campbell Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:07:52 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3031#comment-120871 Gentlemen, what you need here is an aircraft that has the STEALTH, RANGE, ENDURANCE, SURVIVABILTY, AND PAYLOAD(WEAPONS CAPABILITY) OF latest nuclear submarines. An aircraft that can land or take off VTOL from any open field, or water surface. One that can carry over 100 tons (thats a LOT of cruise missles/UCAVs) An aircraft that needs no refueling, no ground crews, no hangers. One that can be sent over oceans, over contininents; which can then linger, undetected, IN THEATER. One that virtually cannot be taken down by ground fire, radar or infra red missle attack. An aircraft, that while relatively slow (say, 100-150 mph) nevertheless can fly without radar, infra red, even accousic signature. In short STEALTHY. An aircraft that can double as a troop transport, carrying up to 200 fully equiped personnel. And put these down, ready-to=fight, on site, without need of any "strip" One that is DO-ABLE, right now, and has been done before. Do-able now, and at costs comparable to say, C-17 each. Gentlemen, I give you: THE MODERN, CARBON FIBER, RIGID, SOLAR POWERED, AMPHIBIOUS,..... AIRSHIP! Am I serious? oh, yes. DARPA "WALRUS" is a tiny fraction of what these can be, if they will abandon "hybrid" idea that still requires runway. AIRSHIPS.....don't you just love it? Gentlemen, what you need here is an aircraft that has the STEALTH, RANGE, ENDURANCE, SURVIVABILTY, AND PAYLOAD(WEAPONS CAPABILITY) OF latest nuclear submarines. An aircraft that can land or take off VTOL from any open field, or water surface. One that can carry over 100 tons (thats a LOT of cruise missles/UCAVs) An aircraft that needs no refueling, no ground crews, no hangers. One that can be sent over oceans, over contininents; which can then linger, undetected, IN THEATER. One that virtually cannot be taken down by ground fire, radar or infra red missle attack. An aircraft, that while relatively slow (say, 100–150 mph) nevertheless can fly without radar, infra red, even accousic signature. In short STEALTHY.
An aircraft that can double as a troop transport, carrying up to 200 fully equiped personnel. And put these down, ready-to=fight, on site, without need of any “strip“
One that is DO-ABLE, right now, and has been done before. Do-able now, and at costs comparable to say, C-17 each.
Gentlemen, I give you: THE MODERN, CARBON FIBER, RIGID, SOLAR POWERED, AMPHIBIOUS,.…. AIRSHIP!
Am I serious? oh, yes. DARPA “WALRUS” is a tiny fraction of what these can be, if they will abandon “hybrid” idea that still requires runway.
AIRSHIPS.….don’t you just love it?

]]> By: Murchttp://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/killer-drone-dead-new-bomber-lives/comment-page-1/#comment-120870 Murc Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:25:00 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3031#comment-120870 Cold war like...I dont think so. Would you prefer we build a bunch of small UCAS'for the purpose of small countries and terrorist. Then what happens if you go to war with a bigger player like China? By the way...The Pentagon nor the USAF have said this will be manned...In fact, its much more probable that it will be unmanned. BTW, the inside defense article needs an account to view it...So heres a site that you can read it with out paying. http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,85361,00.html?Etopstories.RSS Cold war like…I dont think so.
Would you prefer we build a bunch of small UCAS’for the purpose of small countries and terrorist. Then what happens if you go to war with a bigger player like China?
By the way…The Pentagon nor the USAF have said this will be manned…In fact, its much more probable that it will be unmanned.
BTW, the inside defense article needs an account to view it…So heres a site that you can read it with out paying.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,85361,00.html?Etopstories.RSS

]]> By: C-Lowhttp://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/killer-drone-dead-new-bomber-lives/comment-page-1/#comment-120869 C-Low Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:13:48 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3031#comment-120869 Thier is only a certian amount of money to go around and with todays JDAM's and some of the new SDB, curise missles, and the glide bombs makes large bombers that can tote the bomb load = 15 UCAV or 10X F/B 22. Why buy 15 UCAV's that have limited range and less loiter when you can buy 1 heavy bomber that can match everything the UCAV has plus has long range or extra long loiter times. The Cold War air force set up for short to mid range strike with a backup of long range was ideal for fighting the Soviets in Europe from our local EU air bases. Todays threats are diverse spread out all over the world and the big one China is going to require long range stike craft. In the future we will have more and more small dispersed targets like say a terrorist camp in mid africa or even central asia a long range bomber will make it alot easier to handle, short range platforms will need tankered across to the region then fly out of a regional base (making a ally have to actually participate in the strike and not just sit back and say how can we stop the US we didnt even know they flew over, plausable deniability)not to mention telegraphing our move big time across numerous bases is not good. Not saying strike fighters are dead just that the big bomber has eclipsed it for now especially with todays requirements and poliltics. The long range bomber used as either loitering artilery or long range strikers thier day has come again. And remember even the B-2 and its 2bill price tag is not so bad when considering that is equal to 10 $200mill F/B-22 thats a wash until you include the savings in pilots and personel, and of course the extra ability. The catch one big bomber cant be in 10places at once cruise missles and glide bombs help a little but only so much. And I am with Murdoc the Carriers going non-nuclear is one of those ideas that are just WTF ideas. The only thing I can think of is maybe this is some tards idea to help get the Euro's Brit and France to go with larger carriers by co-opting in their developement by US coming down and joing in. Which is scary can anyone imagine if we were dependent on France as a quarter of our carrier support. I dont know all of this may just be bluffing and money moving that will in the end be totally different anyway. Thier is only a certian amount of money to go around and with todays JDAM’s and some of the new SDB, curise missles, and the glide bombs makes large bombers that can tote the bomb load = 15 UCAV or 10X F/B 22. Why buy 15 UCAV’s that have limited range and less loiter when you can buy 1 heavy bomber that can match everything the UCAV has plus has long range or extra long loiter times.
The Cold War air force set up for short to mid range strike with a backup of long range was ideal for fighting the Soviets in Europe from our local EU air bases. Todays threats are diverse spread out all over the world and the big one China is going to require long range stike craft. In the future we will have more and more small dispersed targets like say a terrorist camp in mid africa or even central asia a long range bomber will make it alot easier to handle, short range platforms will need tankered across to the region then fly out of a regional base (making a ally have to actually participate in the strike and not just sit back and say how can we stop the US we didnt even know they flew over, plausable deniability)not to mention telegraphing our move big time across numerous bases is not good.
Not saying strike fighters are dead just that the big bomber has eclipsed it for now especially with todays requirements and poliltics. The long range bomber used as either loitering artilery or long range strikers thier day has come again. And remember even the B-2 and its 2bill price tag is not so bad when considering that is equal to 10 $200mill F/B-22 thats a wash until you include the savings in pilots and personel, and of course the extra ability. The catch one big bomber cant be in 10places at once cruise missles and glide bombs help a little but only so much.
And I am with Murdoc the Carriers going non-nuclear is one of those ideas that are just WTF ideas. The only thing I can think of is maybe this is some tards idea to help get the Euro’s Brit and France to go with larger carriers by co-opting in their developement by US coming down and joing in. Which is scary can anyone imagine if we were dependent on France as a quarter of our carrier support.
I dont know all of this may just be bluffing and money moving that will in the end be totally different anyway.

]]> By: TrustButVerifyhttp://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/killer-drone-dead-new-bomber-lives/comment-page-1/#comment-120868 TrustButVerify Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:08:32 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3031#comment-120868 Mr. Skinner, For once I agree with you, 100%. The only manned bomber concept I can defend is an interim B-52 replacement which would utilize an existing airframe and be put into production sooner rather than later. Mr. Skinner,
For once I agree with you, 100%.
The only manned bomber concept I can defend is an interim B-52 replacement which would utilize an existing airframe and be put into production sooner rather than later.

]]>