Whats ignorant and stupid is people who think something is great because of how high tech it is. Spennding Billions of dollars on a useless piece is a waste no matter how much technology is in the thing. Its like oh WOW NASA is soo cool they launch people into space, but in the end all that you get is a bigger dick for your nation at the price of something that could actually help this world, same for all this new military hardware yeah its high tech and sexy and kick everyones ass but again at the end of the day is all a bunch of political dick waving when there are alot more important things than how sexy our new planes look.
Whats ignorant and stupid is people who think something is great because of how high tech it is. Spennding Billions of dollars on a useless piece is a waste no matter how much technology is in the thing. Its like oh WOW NASA is soo cool they launch people into space, but in the end all that you get is a bigger dick for your nation at the price of something that could actually help this world, same for all this new military hardware yeah its high tech and sexy and kick everyones ass but again at the end of the day is all a bunch of political dick waving when there are alot more important things than how sexy our new planes look.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,332
- 14,741
- 146
Some of us remember when bombers reigned supreme...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041996/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057793/
OS
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 15,581
- 1
- 76
Every country that had any sort of power in history had a sizeable military, and the bigger the more powerful the country, the bigger the military. Imagine that.
I know some people like to think we live in a utopia now, but human nature is really not all that different now than it was a thousand years ago.
I'm not saying we should indiscriminately knock off the rest of the world, but it must be nice to be a peacenik living in a nuclear protected first world country.
not to mention that if you have 2 pilots who fail at piloting a 1.2 billion aircraft which is 1/not that many of these planes, that's just as bad as having a plane that can be shot down
You're not amused at all from what I gather on this forum.
The B2 looks like a boomerang and the SR-71 looks like a flat penis with two pointy balls.
Yea the SR-71 is a cool plane, but just about everyone says that, me included.
Though the SR-71 only had one operational purpose, as a reconnaissance plane.
It was fast and high-flying for sure, but had numerous problems, like any other piece of advanced avionics.
Though the SR-71 and B2 were military planes developed for the sole purpose of war with russia. There was so much military overspending during the cold war I'm sure you can find any number of perfect examples of military over-spending (though nothing is going to trump the current money pit we have in Iraq).
After reading up a bit on the B2 I learned there was more to it than just being able to fly into the heart of Russia with nukes. ICBMs took care of that, the B2 did have other specific missions to do further damage to Russia in the case of all out nuclear war.
91TTZ covered some important points about the true costs of these planes.
As for the SR71, the production cost of each plane was $225 million, that does not include all R&D, maintenence etc. The yearly cost just to maintain the fleet of 20-30 was almost $300 million a year. Hell, 12 of the 32 SR-71s were lost in accidents during its tenure of ~40 years. It looks like the B2 is going to beat that record.
There are plenty of military programs spending billions of dollars to develop new technology, and many of thoes never see any action, or even the light of day. Not sure why you, or anyone else, would actually get pissed off about the cost of B2 bombers. So really, who cares?
TehMac
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2006
- 9,976
- 3
- 71
My guess is a failure of the electric fly-by-wire controls and the aircraft was more difficult to control until it got near impossible. It's not the easiest thing to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the press release out anyway.
Oh boy. You're just so in the know, aren't you? Maybe you should realize the only reason we're not at war with China and Russia is because they don't want to start something they can't win--they can't. The moment we start slacking, they start pulling ahead. It's a sad reality, but it's dangerous to just alternately stick your head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend it's all flowers.
Oh boy. You're just so in the know, aren't you? Maybe you should realize the only reason we're not at war with China and Russia is because they don't want to start something they can't win--they can't. The moment we start slacking, they start pulling ahead. It's a sad reality, but it's dangerous to just alternately stick your head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend it's all flowers.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
B2 did more damage to the US treasury than it could ever do to USSR
I don't think there are many targets in Russia that are worth $2B a pop, and if there are, you could just hit those with an $100M ICBM.
The problem is that there are a lot of defense contractors and constituents who are accustomed to certain revenues and revenue growth, and the government will find a way to spend that much money whether we need it or not. And if there is no need, it will create some by starting some wars or arms races to justify the spending, or buy some overpriced junk like the B2.
I don't think there are many targets in Russia that are worth $2B a pop, and if there are, you could just hit those with an $100M ICBM.
The problem is that there are a lot of defense contractors and constituents who are accustomed to certain revenues and revenue growth, and the government will find a way to spend that much money whether we need it or not. And if there is no need, it will create some by starting some wars or arms races to justify the spending, or buy some overpriced junk like the B2.
Originally posted by: senseamp
B2 did more damage to the US treasury than it could ever do to USSR
I don't think there are many targets in Russia that are worth $2B a pop, and if there are, you could just hit those with an $100M ICBM.
The problem is that there are a lot of defense contractors and constituents who are accustomed to certain revenues and revenue growth, and the government will find a way to spend that much money whether we need it or not. And if there is no need, it will create some by starting some wars or arms races to justify the spending, or buy some overpriced junk like the B2.
that is way too rational...
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Bingo :thumbsup:Originally posted by: senseamp
B2 did more damage to the US treasury than it could ever do to USSR
I don't think there are many targets in Russia that are worth $2B a pop, and if there are, you could just hit those with an $100M ICBM.
The problem is that there are a lot of defense contractors and constituents who are accustomed to certain revenues and revenue growth, and the government will find a way to spend that much money whether we need it or not. And if there is no need, it will create some by starting some wars or arms races to justify the spending, or buy some overpriced junk like the B2.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6d_1212714828
http://www.acc.af.mil/accspeci...investigationboard.asp
Moisture in the aircraft's Port Transducer Units during air data calibration distorted the information in the bomber's air data system, causing the flight control computers to calculate an inaccurate airspeed and a negative angle of attack upon takeoff. According to the report, this caused an, "uncommanded 30 degree nose-high pitch-up on takeoff, causing the aircraft to stall and its subsequent crash."
$1.4B writeoff
basically, they needed to heat up the pitot tubes.
some engineers and servicemen knew about the issues, but it was never formalized into their manuals. also, only the original designers understood the importance of them for the flight data computer.
http://www.acc.af.mil/accspeci...investigationboard.asp
Moisture in the aircraft's Port Transducer Units during air data calibration distorted the information in the bomber's air data system, causing the flight control computers to calculate an inaccurate airspeed and a negative angle of attack upon takeoff. According to the report, this caused an, "uncommanded 30 degree nose-high pitch-up on takeoff, causing the aircraft to stall and its subsequent crash."
$1.4B writeoff
basically, they needed to heat up the pitot tubes.
some engineers and servicemen knew about the issues, but it was never formalized into their manuals. also, only the original designers understood the importance of them for the flight data computer.
Originally posted by: da loser
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6d_1212714828
http://www.acc.af.mil/accspeci...investigationboard.asp
Moisture in the aircraft's Port Transducer Units during air data calibration distorted the information in the bomber's air data system, causing the flight control computers to calculate an inaccurate airspeed and a negative angle of attack upon takeoff. According to the report, this caused an, "uncommanded 30 degree nose-high pitch-up on takeoff, causing the aircraft to stall and its subsequent crash."
$1.4B writeoff
basically, they needed to heat up the pitot tubes.
some engineers and servicemen knew about the issues, but it was never formalized into their manuals. also, only the original designers understood the importance of them for the flight data computer.
As I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, it wouldn't be a $1.4 billion writeoff. It's more like a $500 million-$700 million writeoff.
It really does sound like the B2 is a pile of garbage.
Technologically advanced, sure.. but what use is it if it can't even fly? lol
Technologically advanced, sure.. but what use is it if it can't even fly? lol
Until now?
I can't do that, I'm just saying that it sounds like the plane is extremely fragile. I am sure it would be extremely useful under the right circumstances.
It can't fly in the rain, heat, humidity? That's ridiculous.
Originally posted by: Eli
Until now?
I can't do that, I'm just saying that it sounds like the plane is extremely fragile. I am sure it would be extremely useful under the right circumstances.
It can't fly in the rain, heat, humidity? That's ridiculous.
It can fly in them.
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: da loser
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6d_1212714828
http://www.acc.af.mil/accspeci...investigationboard.asp
Moisture in the aircraft's Port Transducer Units during air data calibration distorted the information in the bomber's air data system, causing the flight control computers to calculate an inaccurate airspeed and a negative angle of attack upon takeoff. According to the report, this caused an, "uncommanded 30 degree nose-high pitch-up on takeoff, causing the aircraft to stall and its subsequent crash."
$1.4B writeoff
basically, they needed to heat up the pitot tubes.
some engineers and servicemen knew about the issues, but it was never formalized into their manuals. also, only the original designers understood the importance of them for the flight data computer.
As I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, it wouldn't be a $1.4 billion writeoff. It's more like a $500 million-$700 million writeoff.
that's not what the document says
i think what it shows is the tremendous lack of control by these fly by wire systems
Originally posted by: da loser
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: da loser
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6d_1212714828
http://www.acc.af.mil/accspeci...investigationboard.asp
Moisture in the aircraft's Port Transducer Units during air data calibration distorted the information in the bomber's air data system, causing the flight control computers to calculate an inaccurate airspeed and a negative angle of attack upon takeoff. According to the report, this caused an, "uncommanded 30 degree nose-high pitch-up on takeoff, causing the aircraft to stall and its subsequent crash."
$1.4B writeoff
basically, they needed to heat up the pitot tubes.
some engineers and servicemen knew about the issues, but it was never formalized into their manuals. also, only the original designers understood the importance of them for the flight data computer.
As I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, it wouldn't be a $1.4 billion writeoff. It's more like a $500 million-$700 million writeoff.
that's not what the document says
The document is wrong. I clearly detailed the reasons in my above post. Look at it.
Most of the quoted figure is due to R&D costs, and that doesn't crash with the airplane.
That's not what the article someone posted says.Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Eli
Until now?
I can't do that, I'm just saying that it sounds like the plane is extremely fragile. I am sure it would be extremely useful under the right circumstances.
It can't fly in the rain, heat, humidity? That's ridiculous.
It can fly in them.
where are you getting that it can't fly in rain, heat, or humidity?Originally posted by: Eli
That's not what the article someone posted says.Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Eli
Until now?
I can't do that, I'm just saying that it sounds like the plane is extremely fragile. I am sure it would be extremely useful under the right circumstances.
It can't fly in the rain, heat, humidity? That's ridiculous.
It can fly in them.
PottedMeat
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2002
- 12,363
- 475
- 126
Seems like this would be part of the basic initialization / preflight - I wonder why they diddn't automate it in the first place.
Originally posted by: da loser
where are you getting that it can't fly in rain, heat, or humidity?Originally posted by: Eli
That's not what the article someone posted says.Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Eli
Until now?
I can't do that, I'm just saying that it sounds like the plane is extremely fragile. I am sure it would be extremely useful under the right circumstances.
It can't fly in the rain, heat, humidity? That's ridiculous.
It can fly in them.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F930A1575BC0A961958260
The article is 11 years old. No idea if they've rectified these problems or not.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter