Because they push the limit much further?
Some of their maneuvers gives pilot as high as 20G(9.806m/s^2 x 20) of force.
Some of their maneuvers gives pilot as high as 20G(9.806m/s^2 x 20) of force.
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
thats what those new unmanned attack drones are for. well predator is for recon, but attack drones will be able to pull insane g turns that no pilot could survive. once they get the ai/control down it will make manned fighter pilots far less important
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
There are civilian aircraft crashes/accidents each day (or several a week anyway). They just don't make it to the news.
They have tried to come up with a universal airframe, but no one has yet come up with said airframe to satisfy both the navy and the air force. The navy has gone quite far in consolidating their airframes as well. The A-6 was phased out in favor of using the F-18 as a dual role fighter-bomber. The F-14 may not be the most nimble fighter, but it is the only platform that can get Phoenix missiles into the air, and the Phoenix missile is agreat standoff air-to-air missile system the navy won't easily give up.
Also, we really do need top of the line fighters in today's military. The war on terrorism is not the only war the military needs to be ready to fight. Russia may not be a superpower, but what about all the countries buying up all of Russia's hardware? Also, ever heard of a small, little-known country called China? China is spending a lot of research money into developing new weapon systems and the U.S. needs to keep ahead of the curve.
aren't a lot of commercial airline pilots just former military ones? that could explain it... more training...
decimated? thats a matter of perception. sure if you compare our ability to take on a soviet union now and b4 you could say we're "decimated" but its just really dishonest really since that kind of war doesn't match the times. we're still spending billions developing next generation fighter craft, etc etc etc. its just republicans know that the bases that had to be cut would upset many people even though it was necessary to lower our budget deficit and our national debt.
u know.. maybe if bush hadn't spent so much time on vacation on his bloody ranch the first part of his term in office more could have been done to fight terrorism and possibly prevent 9/11.
since you guys brought that up first.
Here's some clue training for both of you. The cuts started being talked about about the time the old Soviet fell. They were implemented during Bush Sr's term and continued really until about '96/'97 so you can blame two Presidents. I still say an equal amount of blame also goes to the Congress. They completely ignored the pleas for more money from the military, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. There was a real sense of " the Soviet is dead, we have no enemies" after the Gulf war and everyone was talking about a "peace dividend". The money didn't really start coming back into the military until 1998 or so. People were leaving the service in droves because of the great economy and Congress finally realized they were headed to the military of the 1970's and they stopped it. It was a real struggle to do what you needed to do from the end of the Gulf war until '99 or so.
The same could be said of military crashes. The ones in the middle east make the news just because they are in the middle east.
here's a little bit of what "liberal" gore did
Senate Voting Records for Major Candidates
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Candidates' statements on: nuclear weapons ? proliferation
START I
Treaty with Soviet successor states to reduce nuclear weapons arsenals over seven years. Passed 93-6 (10/1/92)
Gore - No vote;
INF
Treaty which eliminates intermediate-range intercontinental ballistic missiles. Passed 93-5 (5/27/88)
Gore - YES;
DEFENSE BUDGET
Candidates' statements on the defense budget
B-2
Amendment to cut $2.75 billion from B-2 bomber development and cancel the program. Rejected 43-56 (8/2/90)
Gore - NO;
Motion to kill amendment that would cut $3.2 billion from the B-2 bomber program and halt the production at fifteen planes. Passed 51-48 (9/25/91)
Gore - YES;
Amendment to cut $2.68 billion from the production of five additional B-2 bombers. Rejected 45-53 (9/18/92)
Gore - NO;
Seawolf submarine
McCain Amendment to cut $3 billion in funding for a second and third Seawolf submarines. Rejected 46-52 (5/5/92)
Gore - NO;
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE/STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE
Candidates' statements on NMD/SDI
Development
Amendment to freeze the SDI budget at $1.4 billion instead of the requested $2.96 billion. Rejected 21-78 (6/4/85)
Gore - NO
Motion to kill amendment to cut $1.2 billion from the SDI Program. Passed 51-50 (9/22/87).
Gore - NO;
Motion to kill amendment to cut $594 million authorized for the SDI program. Passed 56-41 (8/4/90)
Gore - YES;
Deployment
Motion to make it US policy to deploy "effective" national missile defenses "as soon as technologically possible" and to seek further reductions in Russian nuclear weapons. Passed 97-3 (3/17/99)
Texas Gov. George W. Bush supports the rapid development and deployment of National and Theater Missile Defenses.
FUTURE OF NATO
Candidates' statements on NATO
CFE
Treaty to reduce the capabilities for large-scale offensive action in Europe. Passed 90-4 (11/25/91)
Gore - YES; Gore supported the 1998 round of NATO expansion and favors future enlargement.
Senate Voting Records for Major Candidates
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Candidates' statements on: nuclear weapons ? proliferation
START I
Treaty with Soviet successor states to reduce nuclear weapons arsenals over seven years. Passed 93-6 (10/1/92)
Gore - No vote;
INF
Treaty which eliminates intermediate-range intercontinental ballistic missiles. Passed 93-5 (5/27/88)
Gore - YES;
DEFENSE BUDGET
Candidates' statements on the defense budget
B-2
Amendment to cut $2.75 billion from B-2 bomber development and cancel the program. Rejected 43-56 (8/2/90)
Gore - NO;
Motion to kill amendment that would cut $3.2 billion from the B-2 bomber program and halt the production at fifteen planes. Passed 51-48 (9/25/91)
Gore - YES;
Amendment to cut $2.68 billion from the production of five additional B-2 bombers. Rejected 45-53 (9/18/92)
Gore - NO;
Seawolf submarine
McCain Amendment to cut $3 billion in funding for a second and third Seawolf submarines. Rejected 46-52 (5/5/92)
Gore - NO;
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE/STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE
Candidates' statements on NMD/SDI
Development
Amendment to freeze the SDI budget at $1.4 billion instead of the requested $2.96 billion. Rejected 21-78 (6/4/85)
Gore - NO
Motion to kill amendment to cut $1.2 billion from the SDI Program. Passed 51-50 (9/22/87).
Gore - NO;
Motion to kill amendment to cut $594 million authorized for the SDI program. Passed 56-41 (8/4/90)
Gore - YES;
Deployment
Motion to make it US policy to deploy "effective" national missile defenses "as soon as technologically possible" and to seek further reductions in Russian nuclear weapons. Passed 97-3 (3/17/99)
Texas Gov. George W. Bush supports the rapid development and deployment of National and Theater Missile Defenses.
FUTURE OF NATO
Candidates' statements on NATO
CFE
Treaty to reduce the capabilities for large-scale offensive action in Europe. Passed 90-4 (11/25/91)
Gore - YES; Gore supported the 1998 round of NATO expansion and favors future enlargement.
Are you including Cessna's and such?
I think the original poster meant commercial aircraft vs. military aircraft.
If you included Cessna's, it's like comparing occurance of car crashes with bus crashes.
no, YOU are the moron. so just because one president reduced the size of the military (which i dotn think happened under bush sr) means the next president is justified in doing the same? what kind of logic is that? the FACT is that the military was more than adequate prior to Clinton, yet he wrongly chose to drastically reduce spending in favor of tree hugging far left wacko policies which hurt energy production amungst other things. following clinton the military was in one of its weakest positions in decades. furthermore republicans have been very consistent on this topic.
the democratic philosophy for our armed forces is as follows: have as little as possible while still being the #1 military super power, this will minimize the threats every other country feels while still leaving us the best. the republican philosophy is as follows: have as much as possible at all times. you can never have enough defense, or offense. if you have the money, and are capable, then you should and are obligated to spend it. he who slacks off sets himself up for disaster. basically the republican philosophy is to minimize the risk we face, while the democratic philosophy is to minimize the risk other countries face. so to be anti clinton and pro bush sr/jr and reagan is 100% consistent.
and if you still dont understand then i can have my 4yr old explain it to you.
JSF
Jerboy: I don't think a human piloted plane can do 20 g's. Human body can take up to 9 G's before blacking out, iirc. And planes just don't DO 10g moves all the time, basically because you CAN'T do 10g moves if you have bombs or fuel tanks. They limit the G amounts according to the crap they have on the plane.
I agree that it sure 'seems' we lose more military aircraft than we should, given the level of training pilots and maintenance crews are given, and the exorbitant defense contracts we are shelling-out. Especially the C-130, we've lost a few dozen of these over the years in non-combat conditions. We are paying for the best equipment money can buy, and I agree that we should be, but it seems as though we may get something less than that in return some times.
I suspect at least one contributing factor is that design philosophies are very different between civil and military aircraft. Military aircraft are task, mission, or performance critical, whereas civil aircraft designs are far less specialized and place a much higher importance on safety. Military aircraft push the design envelope while civil aircraft are deliberately restrained and refined.
I guess you could draw an analogy between your very reliable daily driver and the high performance 'toy' you take to the track on the weekends.
Don't do drugs their bad mmmk? What happens when countries such as china find the United States weakend, and we piss them off? Bye by USA.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
He said civilian so I just quoted civilian accidents, including Cessna's and stuff
They are published each month. Place, time, conditions, what happened, injuries/deaths.Wrong. The maximum ammount of G-Forces that can be acheieved by a human being is around 6, some blackout a little earlier, some a little later, no more than 6 though usually. American Planes have what is known as fly by wire that do not allow them to exceed this ammount of force, hence there is no way that any plane in our military is giving 20g's of force.
oh wait, so with the republican majority in congress during the clinton years spewing venom they still went along and cut cut cut because thats the republican way?? oh wait, clinton must have been so charming even rabid republicans gave him blowjobs under the table right? give me a break.
and oh yes, we were defenseless during the clinton years, i bet those frenchies could have come right over and whooped our arses. thats right. put your head in the sand my friend. the military still had billions to spend and many new weapons under developement. no massive large scale wars were required during the clinton years so no new massive spending. get it? explain that to your 4 year old.
Keep the political crap OUT OF THIS THREAD. :|
Its one thing to intelligently debate what each administration did what to the military budget but it doesnt belong here and none of it very intelligent anyways. Please stop.
Thats a good start. Thanks for the insight.
And I was talking more about civilian commercial aircraft...but thats OK, doesnt matter too much.
Its one thing to intelligently debate what each administration did what to the military budget but it doesnt belong here and none of it very intelligent anyways. Please stop.
Thats a good start. Thanks for the insight.
And I was talking more about civilian commercial aircraft...but thats OK, doesnt matter too much.
They go more than 6. They have G-suits, which constrict to force blood out of your legs and to your head. I think they pull around nine, which is what a human IIRC can stand with a G-suit. Jerboy may be confusing the fact that an airframe can handle 20 G's, versus what a pilot can handle (less).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter