Comments on: Boeing pulls back the curtain on the NGB

By: angel

angel — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:34:30 +0000

That’s OK!But take a closer look following link,It’s great to DVD and PSP converter for mac!
DVD Ripper for Mac,
Mac DVD Ripper Suite,
Mac DVD Converter Ultimate Suite,
Mac DVD Copy,
Mac DVD Creator,
Mac DVD to iPod Converter,
Mac DVD to iPhone Converter,
Mac DVD to MP4 Converter,
Mac DVD to Apple TV Converter,
Mac DVD to PSP Converter,
Mac DVD to BlackBerry Converter,
Mac DVD Audio Ripper,
Edit DVD,
Vob Converter for Mac,
VOB to iPod Converter for Mac,
VOB to Apple TV Converter for Mac,
VOB to PSP Converter for Mac,
VOB to MPEG4 Converter for Mac,
VOB to M4V Converter for Mac,
VOB to 3GP Converter for Mac,
VOB to MPG Converter for Mac,
VOB to AVI Converter for Mac

By: Colt

Colt — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:30:25 +0000

I agree with Camp, thei air-force needs balance things up with maintaining, high-tech bombers & low-tech B-52 bomber types. This NGB is suppose to be medium bomber like the old FB-111s.
My feeling is that elements of the government will push for the bomber to be unmanned vehicle (save money & save lives of pilots), and attempt to lower price tag on this thing.
Air Force has this habit of driving up the price tags on their purchases of aircraft. Not wanting to keep things low-tech/but smart designed equipment.
I think their going have hard time getting Congress to allow them to build this NGB and make them regretted not developing F-22’s “Bomber” variant FB-22 as cheaper, but stealthy still alternate. R/D is already done with that craft, more you build, cheaper it gets.

By: Ptsfp

Ptsfp — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:37:58 +0000

Yeah, talk about being naive.
Like the Japanese delivering peace medals to Washington while they were delivering bombs on Pearl Harbor…
Or, terrorist learning to takeoff and fly, and asking for scenic maps of NYC, but not interested in learning to land.
Or, how about a former KGB agent elected as President and he places all his KGB buddies in positions of authority. Then they move to obtain as much oil as possible even claiming arctic oil rights and increase the national defense spending by 25%. Now they are talking about a European pact of nations, because NATO just isn’t getting the job done. And they are doing all these things for world peace and the greater good of mankind right?
Ahh… you caught me, I think I am one of those alarmists too.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:00:49 +0000

Nomen Knows Not
(Re: Nomen’s 17 Sept post)
Kudos, of sorts, to Nomen! It is a rare thing to see such arrogance of position supported by such tenuous logic and questionable world-view within so few sentences on these boards. Normally one would have to visit a political website or the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists/FAS lairs to find such fey (by any common or less so intent of the word EXCEPT

By: etrout

etrout — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:26:23 +0000

Actually the U.S. Air Force is planning on using the B-52 through the year 2040. It is a very good aircraft with an 80% readiness rate and I don’t see why it needs replacing anytime in the near future. Heck, why not even build new ones which could fly well beyond 2040. There will always be a need for a low-tech bomb hauler like the Buff. And you can be certain that the terrorist or defenseless enemy soldier in 2070 who just watched his stout-hearted comrades get turned into pudding, will fear it just as much as the VC soldier in Vietnam did way back in 1970.

By: Jon Kay

Jon Kay — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:55:05 +0000

What Camp wrote.
Something like 80–90% of the American bombload has been dropped from B-52s. Isn’t that a platform that urgently needs replacement?

By: etrout

etrout — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:10:41 +0000

Haha, nyet tavarish Camp. But it would be understandable if Russia and China were to attempt to build competing platforms. I’m not sure if they would have the money though, at least not enough to construct the numbers the U.S. could. These space based weapons platforms would most likely have to operate differently then reconnaissance satellites, and be a little more careful whose airspace they flew over. And “spasiba” for those links, they were interesting:)
And gsak, thank you. You are too kind:)

By: Camp

Camp — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:46:26 +0000

etrout,
Are you trying to say, you’d like to see Russia put the Polyus-Skif into orbit over your house?
“Soviet Space Battle Station Skif and Its Prototype Polus“
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1286366/posts
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm

By: gsak

gsak — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:48:46 +0000

Military genius, etrout… I never thought of that.

By: etrout

etrout — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:46:51 +0000

Interesting article, that NGB design looks pretty cool but man, where’s Billy Mitchell and his foresight when you need him. Has anyone thought about bringing strike capabilities into space? Like right now? This wouldn’t require building new platforms from the ground up. Were not the first aircraft carriers modified ships originally built for another purpose?
Why can’t we just build larger versions of the Space Shuttle, paint them gunship grey, and fit them with weapons systems? First we could outfit one with cells of MIRV’s for a space based nuclear deterrent. For info on MIRVS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV
As technology improves we could outfit another version with a rail gun for a space based bombardment capability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gun
And lastly, a third version could incorporate a more powerful version of the laser being designed for the YAL-1 Airborne Laser plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
While using the existing space shuttle design would save a lot of money it would still be expensive, but money could be taken out of other weapons programs such as the NGB and CVNX or wherever. For now more B-2 Spirits and Nimitz class carriers could be built, with research continuing in the area of UCAV’s.
Eventually, with advancements in robotics, larger space based bombardment platforms could be built in orbit to incorporate all three weapons systems, but for now I don’t see why modifying larger versions of the Space Shuttle wouldn’t work. Am I missing something here?