Comments on: It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s an advertisement!

By: rs gold

rs gold — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:50:14 +0000

But this also can not stand the feeling of virtual test, because we have feelings, and equipment can be wear by everyone, number is also. And the issue was coming, the number was stolen, the equipment and the RS gold were stolen. Perhaps the feelings of the game were greater than the reality of the feelings of the problems.

By: rs gold

rs gold — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:49:51 +0000

By: jansenkoe

jansenkoe — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:40:16 +0000

Dear sir with respect to i want to say some words of your advertisement
blogs your blogs is very nice,and i also give a small types of a seagation–
http://www.cityfly.net

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:43:26 +0000

You, uh, been drinkin’? I can’t understand half your post.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:20:10 +0000

Good Morning Brian,
Sorry to see you so worked up. But I couldn’t let your example of the WWII Batt project go.
Althought Naplm and other technolgy made the concept obsolete the idea is alive and in use today it is known as the “Cluster Bomb Unit” or the CBU.
Your arguments are fun but are little more then sport. Unmanned Military is losing ground at a rate the even it strongest advocates only a couple of years ago couldn’t imagine.
Wars have a way of unmasking the obsolesance of old thinking and smashing it, not only is the question of manned vs. unmanned being examined but air combat and it’s value to the ground war in general is in question.
The big losers here of course will be the Military IndustralComplex. The current estimate of the buys for the F-22 will be a money loser for the industry. Using the Rule of 72 and assuming that the buy won’t increase nore the price in real terms and a ten production the last F-55 just based on a 2.5% inflation rate over it’s production life will cost about $50 Million more then the first unit. On the back side the net profit per unit will decline by 30%.
These are not good numbers Brian.
The F-35 is the last hope for industry but even at $256 total project cost it is likely that the F-35 over it’s projected 20 production life will shop a profit.
There are currently more Predators bought or on order then the likely number of F-22’s that will ever be made. The Predator C that is in development will more then like be able to trap on a carrier, right now Predator’s can take off from carriers but the air frames are not strong enough to land, that will change.
Rotary wing UAV’s, this week the Navy placed an order for eight Fire Scouts to start training personal for the fleet. The Fire Scout will be operational by the end of the decade.
You may yell from the highist portal your support all you wish but for manned military aircraft but the battle is over. Maybe the 50K personal dumped from the Air Force and Navy this year can hear you.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:57:25 +0000

Learn to read, son!!!
I didn’t ask you what was wrong with the F-35. I’ve seen enough of your posts to know what you think on that subject.
I asked what was wrong with the Lockheed UAV “Polecat” platform. “Polecat is another word for skunk” you said. So I want to know what is wrong with that program. To which you responded with another attack on the F-35. The Polecat is not the F-35. What is wrong with the Polecat?
For those of you who don’t know, the F-35 will be aquired in far larger numbers than the F-22. It will also fill a role the F-22 cannot. It will have a carrier version and a STOVL version. The F-22 can’t do that.
The F-35 should save money by eliminating many of the different planes we currently use. By consolidating parts and decreasing maintainance costs, the F-35 will be cheaper than buying more of the same old planes. The reason it’s such an expensive program is because we’re buying so many of them.

By: Murc

Murc — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:53:45 +0000

I think the reason Lockheed has being laying low with “UAV talk” is because it would likely make the F-35 seem like a waste of money.
I have nothing against the F-35…But it seems its turning into the ISS (international space station)…and by that I mean: The ISS has several countries from around the world invested in it, which means the US (the main builder) cant back out of it until its built…which is costing many many billions of dollars.
I think the Raptor costs like 120 million…I think they should cut the F-35 now (rather then later) and put there money into a couple hundred more F-22’s and UCAVS, I see this being cheaper and making more sense…But the Dozen or so JSF partners wouldn’t like it.

By: Noah

Noah — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:27:33 +0000

What’s wrong with the F-35? You mean aside from being yet another taxpayer subsidized multi-hundred-billion dollar weapons program that is without warrant (execpt of course for Lockheed profits)? How about costs on par with the F-22? How about the GAO report critizing the project? How about a system designed to deliver death and destruction that is yet another step removed from human control?
To put it in two easy to remember words: War Corporatism. Ever wonder what happened to the Peace Dividend? It was unprofitable …

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:17:27 +0000

Byron, second verse, same as the first.
It seems there are a crowd of “regulars” here, and after a little while, one can predict the exact content of any particular person’s post on any particular subject.
Yes, it’s true that technological change is inevitable. But before you jump all over those who failed to embrace the longbow, or those who clung closely to the armored knight, or those Poles who charged their cavalry directly into the German machine guns, make sure you aren’t advocating a different kind of fallacy. The UAV hasn’t changed aviation yet. Remember, there were those who wanted to release swarms of explosive-laden bats upon Tokyo. There were those who said that the nuclear hand-grenade was the weapon of the future. Some said that the 1960s would see soldiers in rocket-packs dominating the battlefield.
Where are my ray-guns, dammit? I want my battleships made out of icebergs, and my nuclear-powered bombers. All of it supported by laser sattelites raining death from the skies.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:57:27 +0000

Noah, you have a problem with the Lockheed UAV program? What’s wrong with it?
Oh wait, you tried to make a smart-ass comment about the F-35, but you didn’t read clearly and believed that “polecat” was somehow related to that aircraft. I gotcha.