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.

 

Pentagon Screw-ups: The good and the bad of US Planes!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The SR71 had a theoretically infinite lifetime. The outer shell was made out of titanium, and the stretching was caused by large amounts of heat, which also served to retemper the skin everytime it flew. They also weren't as expensive as Congress made them out to be, just a lot of people thought that sattelites were cheaper and more effective, which is a joke.


Very ture! The SR-71 was made out to be a "budget buster" and it wasn't. They forgot, most countries can track satellites and accuratly predict when they will fly over. We do it all the time. Why do you think they have "Scoot-and-Hide" shelters at Groom Lake. this limits the effectiveness of satellites for collecting intelligence.

Satellites were cheaper and more effective?


Come on! Who came up with this overstuffed load of Bull #? Does anyone want to guess what one of the Keyhole Spy satellites costs before you ever buy the rocket that it's launched on? I don't know for sure myself, but I have heard that it's in the Tens of BILLIONS! An upgraded SR-71 woun't cost anything Near that.

When I see the ignorance in the outside world, I remember why I joined ATS!

[edit on 16-6-2005 by ghost]




posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Umm... do people know the positions of government satellites or is it kept secret?
And c'mon you know they have to have a better aircraft flying in its place.


M6D

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter

Originally posted by M6D
about the v-22, i guess you can if you want, not trust me here, but i heard from a reliable source that the 2 v-22's in question that crashed, were been piloted by marine pilots, who couldnt cope with the complicated flight control system, and in the end crashed, however, the pentagon or whatever isnt happy about admitting that the 'best of the best' milltary pilots arent up to the v-22


That is a load of crap.


Canada_EH
thank you for at least clarrifying part of what i said, instaed of this ignorant dumbass who just said 'thats a load of crap in most probably the most ignorant way ive ever seen, people always blame it on the airframe, but dont forget..sometimes it is the pilots fault...remember that b-52 crash where the pilots tried to show off in rehearsel for a airshow..nuff said



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   


F-15 Eagle: The F-15 is one of the world's best fighters. Some good upgrades would be nice though. They are in too much of a hurry to put this plane out to pasture.


I'am with you there mate... The Falcon is one of the best fighters in the world... Insted they want to retire them and put the miracle worker (F-22) on the job... To me it seems that the pentagon only wishies to brag about how many planes and sorts they have... And the F/A 18... It's used by many other air-forces tahn the F-16, then it must be good, right...



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... do people know the positions of government satellites or is it kept secret?


The Position of these satellites is officially a secret, but most modern countries have the ability to locate and track them once they reach orbit. For example, even though the Russian denied having spy satellites in the 1960's NORAD Tracked them from Chenne Mountain and would warn places like Groom Lake to hide secret aircraft before Russian Spy Satellites came over the horizon. If we could do that back in the earily 1960's, I'm sure other countries such as: China, North Korea, and Iran might have that capibility by now. After all, it's been 40 years!

Tim



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by M6D

Originally posted by jetsetter

Originally posted by M6D
about the v-22, i guess you can if you want, not trust me here, but i heard from a reliable source that the 2 v-22's in question that crashed, were been piloted by marine pilots, who couldnt cope with the complicated flight control system, and in the end crashed, however, the pentagon or whatever isnt happy about admitting that the 'best of the best' milltary pilots arent up to the v-22


That is a load of crap.


Canada_EH
thank you for at least clarrifying part of what i said, instaed of this ignorant dumbass who just said 'thats a load of crap in most probably the most ignorant way ive ever seen, people always blame it on the airframe, but dont forget..sometimes it is the pilots fault...remember that b-52 crash where the pilots tried to show off in rehearsel for a airshow..nuff said

No problem. pilot error happens and any one thats flown a plane knows it. I have seen footage of the B-52 crash and its pretty horrific. and its actually sorta simaler in that its in a desending turn like the osprey was and the lift gives out on the wing of sorts. its been a while since i read exactly what it was.
Speaking on the Osprey it just has resently completed the test runs it was given adn preformed amazingly. hopefully this sore in the US militarys side will be able to heal.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN



F-15 Eagle: The F-15 is one of the world's best fighters. Some good upgrades would be nice though. They are in too much of a hurry to put this plane out to pasture.


I'am with you there mate... The Falcon is one of the best fighters in the world... Insted they want to retire them and put the miracle worker (F-22) on the job... To me it seems that the pentagon only wishies to brag about how many planes and sorts they have... And the F/A 18... It's used by many other air-forces tahn the F-16, then it must be good, right...

One problem with your logic though FIN. If everyone else has it what makes our that much better? we have been seeing that in the air to air competetions around the world. The US has had a harder time beating the opponents out of the sky as of late.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I'd like to kick in my two cents worth on some of these aircraft.

First: The major problem with building a newer version of the SR-71 is the lack of tooling. Modern aircraft are built using jigs and fixtures that take almost as much engineering as the plane it self. The Secratary of Defence Robert McNamarra ordered the tooling and jigs for the SR-71 destroyed so that follow-on versions couldn't compete with funding for the F-111. Another problem is the lack of documentation that was kept during the manufacture of the aircraft. The Skunk Works was outstanding in almost everything that they did, but this was one of their weak points. To recreate both the tooling and documentation would be extremely expensive. This makes the manufacture of new SR-71 not economically viable. You would have to spend several hundred million dollars just to recreate the 1960's technology to have something to build off of.

Second: I remember watching a show on the Military Channel that explained that the MV-22 crash was caused by an aberration in the aircraft's flight characteristics. The aircraft started moving sideways before it had finished the transition from horizontal to vertical flight. The wings lost lift before the rotors had enough lift to support the aircraft. There is now a sensor for this and the recovery procedure is now standard training.

Third: The F-16 was designed as a short range interceptor for air defense. It was never intended to cross oceans except when being ferried from the US to Europe. It has been pressed into service to fill a number of roles for which it was never intended. I don't think that it needs to be replaced. When the F-16 was designed the reliability of jet engines was about 1/3 of what it is today. Then an aircraft that would be operating long distance over water needed to have two engines and be able to fly on one. Now I don't think it is as necessary. You could argue that one might suffer battle damage, but with the capability of modern missiles and air defense weapons I think that it is a moot point.

I don't think that the Pentagon needs a major overhaul. I think that the politicians need to stay the hell out of weapons procurement and let the experts do their jobs. Every problem that has been listed in this thread can be traced back to politicans sticking their noses in where they do not belong.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk

Now... as you can see from those numbers, 2 would be the max, its not the weight of the apache, its the bulk. If you can fit 6 Apaches in the C-17, I have a number of RAF friends that would KILL to meet you and explain how its done.



Well, you put two in the front, three in the back and one in the boot (trunk).

Yes, you have to have been a UK student and know what a Mini was to understand this



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
If you can fit 6 Apaches in the C-17, I have a number of RAF friends that would KILL to meet you and explain how its done.


I think it depends on how far you tear down your Apache. There were some remarks made about blade fold and DEROS kits. They are probably either folding or removing the rotor blades, removing the horizontal stabilizer and detaching the tail boom. Then is is just how you stack them in the plane. When I was at an airshow I spent alot of time inside a C-17 lookins around. One of the crewmen told me that they can put a huge amount of cargo on just the rear ramp alone.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The C-17 can carry a lot of cargo, but can someone explain to me how the C-5, which is a LOT bigger than the C-17 can only carry 6 AH-64s too?

"As far as vehicles go, a C-5 can hold 6 Apaches helicopters, 6 M-2/M-3 Bradley Infantry Vehicles, or a 74-ton mobile bridge. If the cargo is in the forms of pallets, a C-5 can carry 36 pallets, which can be loaded in just 90 minutes . A C-5 has 35,000 cubic feet of cargo space which is 5 times more than a C-141 can hold!"
www.geocities.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by M6D
about the v-22, i guess you can if you want, not trust me here, but i heard from a reliable source that the 2 v-22's in question that crashed, were been piloted by marine pilots, who couldnt cope with the complicated flight control system, and in the end crashed, however, the pentagon or whatever isnt happy about admitting that the 'best of the best' milltary pilots arent up to the v-22


You need to check your facts.
www.globalsecurity.org...

Only one of the accidents could be blamed on pilot error, and that's shaky at best. The V-22 has entered into operational service in the Marines without any major incidents. All of the early crashes were during the test phase of the aircraft.
The flight controls are no more complicated than any other aircraft. Your reliable source isn't that reliable.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
First: The major problem with building a newer version of the SR-71 is the lack of tooling. Modern aircraft are built using jigs and fixtures that take almost as much engineering as the plane it self. The Secratary of Defence Robert McNamarra ordered the tooling and jigs for the SR-71 destroyed so that follow-on versions couldn't compete with funding for the F-111.


How True! That was my intended point. I know the story behind the SR-71. However it was still a screw-up at the Pentagon. Whenever the people in the Pentagon choose politics over National Security, it is a screw-up. The purpose of the US Defense Department is to protect our nation, not to get into politics. You are 100% right in your conclusion, but that dosen't change the fact that in the end retireing the SR-71 Blackbird is the resualt of a screw-up at the Pentagon. (Screw-up's can be deliberate you know!)



Second: I remember watching a show on the Military Channel that explained that the MV-22 crash was caused by an aberration in the aircraft's flight characteristics. The aircraft started moving sideways before it had finished the transition from horizontal to vertical flight. The wings lost lift before the rotors had enough lift to support the aircraft. There is now a sensor for this and the recovery procedure is now standard training.


Again, as I said in an earilier post: They should have done a lot more testing before they pushed the Full-scale production of the design. Finding these flaws is thw whole reason aircraft are flight tested. If they would slow down and take the time to get the bugs out of the technology, It could be a star aircraft.



Third: The F-16 was designed as a short range interceptor for air defense. It was never intended to cross oceans except when being ferried from the US to Europe. It has been pressed into service to fill a number of roles for which it was never intended. I don't think that it needs to be replaced. When the F-16 was designed the reliability of jet engines was about 1/3 of what it is today. Then an aircraft that would be operating long distance over water needed to have two engines and be able to fly on one. Now I don't think it is as necessary. You could argue that one might suffer battle damage, but with the capability of modern missiles and air defense weapons I think that it is a moot point.


Well, the F/A-18 started off as the YF-17, which competed against the F-16 for the role of short range interceptor. The YF-17 was slightly modified to make the F/A-18. However, I've never heard anyone referr the the Hornet as a "Lawn Dart". You are right that engins were less reliable, but that's why common scense sais you should use TWO Engines. It the Same with the Fly-by-Wire computers. Did you ever ask your self why all Fly-by-Wire aircraft have at least three seprate Flight control computers? SAFTY! I personally feel the F-16 lack adequate Safety features to be a combat aircraft!



I don't think that the Pentagon needs a major overhaul. I think that the politicians need to stay the hell out of weapons procurement and let the experts do their jobs. Every problem that has been listed in this thread can be traced back to politicans sticking their noses in where they do not belong.


I give you that one! When you put a politican where they should Not be, you get trouble every time. They never fail to Screw up if you give then a chance!


Tim



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

Again, as I said in an earilier post: They should have done a lot more testing before they pushed the Full-scale production of the design. Finding these flaws is thw whole reason aircraft are flight tested. If they would slow down and take the time to get the bugs out of the technology, It could be a star aircraft.


I design and test industrial machinery for a living. We do extensive testing on both how long our products last and on safety. We actually try to figure out the stupidest thing that someone could do to our machines and test the results of it. This makes for some spectacular tests at times. The point that I am trying to make is that no matter how much we think up to test for our customers always come up with something that we never thought of. You could test the MV-22 for 10 years and some LTJG. get into a situation that you would have never thought of in a million years. The best that you can do is to try what you can think of and then put a system in place to keep learning, modifying and training the crews. The first time that something happens it is a mistake or flaw, the second time it happens it is negligence.
In the 80's I spent five years in the U.S. Navy as a crewman and mechanic on Sea King helicopters. The Sea King came into service in the 60's and we were still discovering things about the aircraft. I walked away from one crash and got dinged up in a second. Military Aviation is a hazardous job. You do your best to limit the risks but SH*T HAPPENS.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

we have been seeing that in the air to air competetions around the world. The US has had a harder time beating the opponents out of the sky as of late.


Maybe because the US almost always has ridiculous handicaps against them, where have you been?



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Senior Ice/B-2 Spirit
oint it at target, instant crater. Definitely need more.

Senior Trend/F-117 Nighthawk: Great idea, but too specialized. As a fighter it shoul carry missiles and a gun. Which it DON'T.

F-15 Eagle: Its gonna be replaced by the F-35? NOW who're the terrorists?

F-14 Tomcat: Very hot plane, and it should never be retired. Upgrade it and watch things explode. Very good interceptor.

F-16 Falcon: Its a good strike craft I think, and the shape of it makes its roll capabilities real cool. Should be kept.

F/A-18 Hornet\Super Hornet: They nice, but the super hornets probly will be forced out by the F-35 or another variant. Very nice plane. Blue Angels rule.

SR-71 Blackbird: Best friggin spyplane EVER. I understand why the retire it... I hate it but I understand. After the wars, there's no need for it. We have satellites. What they need to do is make it able to deliver a payload accurately at high altitude and at speed. Aurora predecessor?

F-35\JSF: I dislike this plane. It is taking all capabilities and squishing it into one. Which means that it can do everything, but sucks at doing anything. More specialized planes may cost more money, but they deliver. The prize goes to all them specialized interceptors, bombers, and others.

CX/Stealth Transport: I don't know much bout this one, but I think that we need a heavy transport that can penetrate into enemy territory and deliver supplies and get out again.

F-111 Aardvark:Hey government, you SUCK. This is the best multirole fighter/bomber around. I suspect that it could be well modified into interception duty as well.

CV-22 Osprey: Like helicopter, only more fun =)

F/A-22: great interceptor, but the payload is restrictive. I think things like the hornet and F-14 have advantage here as they carry more versatile loadouts, allowing more destruction per sortie.

RAH-66 Comanche: They scrapped this. What... the frick. just what the frick. that's all. Best combat helicopter....

CH-(22?) Chinook: Great copter, it surprises me that they wanna replace it with the Osprey. It's not the Chinook's time yet.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Senior Ice/B-2 Spirit
oint it at target, instant crater. Definitely need more.

Senior Trend/F-117 Nighthawk: Great idea, but too specialized. As a fighter it shoul carry missiles and a gun. Which it DON'T.

F-35\JSF: I dislike this plane. It is taking all capabilities and squishing it into one. Which means that it can do everything, but sucks at doing anything. More specialized planes may cost more money, but they deliver. The prize goes to all them specialized interceptors, bombers, and others.

F-111 Aardvark:Hey government, you SUCK. This is the best multirole fighter/bomber around. I suspect that it could be well modified into interception duty as well.


I Agree with your points on all of these planes! The B-2 has poven that it is truly an irreplacable asset in our startegic arsenal. With only one tanker, a B-2 can reach and hit ANY target on earth. The aircraft can penetrate all known and forseen air defense network. With this plane, unless you can hide from US intelligence forever, Pucker up, and Kiss your Ass goodby! Once we know where you'er hiding, the B-2 Spirit Will finish you off. (When you think about B-2's carring the 5'000lbs. GBU-37 Bunker Buster smart bombs, it brings a whole new meaning to the saying "Going out with a Bang", doesn't it?)


The F-117 could have been much better if it wasn't so limited in it's capabilities! A big part of the problem is the Air Force wanted the planes quick and cheep!

F-35? Come on, you would think the Pentagon would know better then to build these. The JSF started out as a really bad idea and made it worse! If you ask for too much, you end up with nothing, or an F-35! The Morons who run the defense department don't seem to get the fact that you can't do everything really well. (It's like what my mom always sias: A Jack of all trades, is a Master of NONE!)

If you start with a really bad Idea, Spending a lot of money on it, won't make it better! Now you see why I think the people who run the Pentagon are Incompetent.

Tim

P.S. There is only one thing MORE DANGEROUS to this world than a Nuclear Bomb, and that is the IDIOT who's got his finger on the Detonator!


[edit on 29-7-2005 by ghost]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   


F-35\JSF: I dislike this plane. It is taking all capabilities and squishing it into one. Which means that it can do everything, but sucks at doing anything. More specialized planes may cost more money, but they deliver. The prize goes to all them specialized interceptors, bombers, and others.


No offense but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. The F-35 will be an outstanding bomb-truck with state-of-the-art equipment such as the EOTS (Electro-Optical Targeting System) that will provide long-range detection and precision targeting, along with the Northrop Grumman DAS (Distributed Aperture System) thermal imaging system. For air-to-air combat, it will have the AIM-9X and JHMQS for outstanding dogfight performance, it also said the F-35 is more agile than a clean F-16A. For BVR combat it will carry AIM-120D AMRAAM missiles and have the AN/APG-81 AESA radar, I will not be surprised if this aircraft is the second best BVR fighter in the world, behind the F-22. We all know it has stealth, so I won't go into that.

Saying this aircraft "sucks" is absolutley ridiculous. This will be one hell of an aircraft.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Senior Trend/F-117 Nighthawk: Great idea, but too specialized. As a fighter it shoul carry missiles and a gun. Which it DON'T.

F-15 Eagle: Its gonna be replaced by the F-35? NOW who're the terrorists?

F/A-18 Hornet\Super Hornet: They nice, but the super hornets probly will be forced out by the F-35 or another variant. Very nice plane. Blue Angels rule.


The F-117 was never designed to be a fighter in the first place. One of the reasons was that they wanted the top fighter pilots to fly the plane. Also worked to cover up its real role.
F-15 is being replaced by the F-22's not the F-35's. Infact the process has already benn started at key bases around the states.
Super Hornets are bein used along side the 35's on the carriers. Super Hornets are not being designed/ produced to be replaced in 12 years.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join