It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air Force wants 10 commercial airframes for "research purposes"

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

Don't even get me started on that SOB. He used to brag about the times, plural, that he over Gd F-4s and warped the wings. Like it was something to be proud of.
edit on 11/3/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Good to know some things remain constant...

Y'all sound just like my Dad, he retired in '67, after three wars worth of the same sort of crap...

Makes me kinda glad I, out of my generation of family didn't serve...I wouldn't have done well.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

When that jackaas was in charge at Hickam, it was the prettiest base in the Air Force. All the buildings were a lovely earth tone and repainted every year. Lawns were regulation length, etc. Didn't matter about the planes having problems, the base was absolutely perfect.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Been there, back, I think, when you were there... I was just visiting family stationed at Pearl.

Would have been around '82, maybe '81... Did the Pearl Harbour attack tour. All the places I'd read about, and seen in the movies.

It was somber, and sobering, seeing bullet holes in buildings at Hickam.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

You just missed us both ways. We left in 80 to Pease and went back in 83.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Perhaps the shoot down of the Russian passenger plane on the weekend wasnt as destructive as somebody intended.

Seems the downing of the plane as gone off the ATS radar already. By my count that 4 days? Obviously not on the MSM anymore I assume.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

It wasn't shot down. There are still several active threads about it. It's not off the radar.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: Zaphod58

Why aren't you an adviser at the Pentagon already?


He has a brain - automatically DQs him.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
AMC really needs new aircraft. From tankers to heavy lift to VIP, everything needs to be replaced. The current set of fighter jocks just cant get procurement right when it comes heavies.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Because they don't care. They're not stealthy, they're not fast, and they don't shoot missiles. They don't exist as far as they're concerned.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
It's not just the Air Force, the Navy's just as fouled up. If it isn't the F-35, F/A-18 or SEALS it doesn't exist.
Then the Navy scrapped the S-3 Viking leaving no real tanker capability on its carriers. During blue water ops it takes six F/A-18s to keep two on station if they can't get an AIR FORCE TANKER.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

A close relative of mine went to MIT when he was 16, was a nuclear physicist in the AF, and forced to retire when he was a MAJ over other folks who had their wings, even though those other folks were no longer actively flying! Meanwhile, my relative was still doing a very specific, classified job.

I still hear some crazy stuff about the preferential treatment of the flyboys club (i.e. DUIs being overlooked, etc.) granted this was back in the 80s but still. Now, my relative works in the basement of the Pentagon as a GS15 and has to deal with all those frat/fly boys making all the decisions as Generals or SESs...

The system is pretty damn broke. Granted - I think there are some positives like what the RCO has been doing with their procurements, but, as someone who works in contracting as a Contracting Officer it amazes me the political influence on these major projects - specifically because the FAR is supposed to protect the taxpayers interest and the integrity of the whole process.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   


The desired aircraft must have the size, weight, power and cooling to accommodate 5,897kg (13,000lbs) of prime mission equipment including two 272kg (600lb) “transmitter/receiver” payloads on each side, plus defensive systems to counter electro-optical/infrared-guided missiles and "laser threats". It must support two aircrew and five mission specialist working at consoles in the main cabin.


Interesting payload and a weapon systems rig. I know what that kind of telemetry is going to be looking for, and I know what the "laser threats" are. Do you guys? Not being snarky, honest question.



new topics




 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join