BP Oil Spill Crisis...Sign of the times?

[Araninski]

Sorry my bad.

I didn’t meant this was a sign , I said this could be a sign.

The spill hasn’t stop yet.

Again I am sorry if I appeared something I am not.

But Rev 22:12 in the moment you less expect it, He will come.

Peace of Christ bro.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The military has a habit of not revealing its latest technology. The United States still has enemies with relatively advanced equipment. Look up the NR-1 for a hint.

God bless,
Ed

Sorry for putting you in a corner.

I thought you had some actual knowledge you could share of some actual military hardware that could be rolled out this afternoon to plug the hole instead of hypotheticals or speculations.

NR-1 was retired in 2009. Whether it could descend to 5000 feet is unknown. Keep in mind that when Ballard looked for the Thresher and the Scorpion [and the Titanic], they [apparently] used remote controlled submersibles, not manned subs.

The government has a poor track record of funding esoteric hardware. And a track record of mothballing anything that seems to be promising or that has proven to work or that makes the United States look good. Apollo 18, 19, 20. SR-71. EF-111A. No idea what the Navy has lost, but I’m sure it is significant. EA-6 wing rebuilts.

 

[edwest2]

Sorry for putting you in a corner.

I thought you had some actual knowledge of some actual military hardware instead of hypotheticals.

NR-1 was retired in 2009. Whether it could descend to 5000 feet is unknown. Keep in mind that when Ballard looked for the Thresher and the Scorpion [and the Titanic], they [apparently] used remote controlled submersibles, not manned subs.

NR-1 is retired? Just like the time they came up with an SR-71 when it was needed.

Like I said, the military doesn’t advertise their sophisticated hardware.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Monte_RCMS]

NR-1 is retired? Just like the time they came up with an SR-71 when it was needed.

Like I said, the military doesn’t advertise their sophisticated hardware.

God bless,
Ed

The U-2 and the SR-71 were brought to you courtesy of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

So far from President Obama we have the Space Shuttle scheduled to shut down in just a few months with NO replacement, apart from paying the Soviets/Russians to fly our astronauts up to the International Space Station.

President Obama is also terminating the F-22 stealth fighter and the NASA manned space flight rockets.

Doesn’t say much for the fate of high-tech military projects.

 

[CWBetts]

The U-2 and the SR-71 were brought to you courtesy of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

So far from President Obama we have the Space Shuttle scheduled to shut down in just a few months with NO replacement, apart from paying the Soviets/Russians to fly our astronauts up to the International Space Station.

President Obama is also terminating the F-22 stealth fighter and the NASA manned space flight rockets.

Doesn’t say much for the fate of high-tech military projects.

The stealth fighter is NOT being fazed out. The F-22 is an air superiority craft that was slated to replace the F-15 Strike Eagle, the F-14 Tomcat, and the F/A-18 Hornet. The Stealth is the F-117. Also, the F-22 has been plagued by mechanical and avionics problems since its inception. IMHO, getting rid of the F-22 is the smartest thing Obama has done. (I’m not a fan of the guy, but I do believe in giving credit where it is due, and that misinformation should be squelched immediately).

 

[edwest2]

The U-2 and the SR-71 were brought to you courtesy of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

So far from President Obama we have the Space Shuttle scheduled to shut down in just a few months with NO replacement, apart from paying the Soviets/Russians to fly our astronauts up to the International Space Station.

President Obama is also terminating the F-22 stealth fighter and the NASA manned space flight rockets.

Doesn’t say much for the fate of high-tech military projects.

The glass is half full. There’s just too much negativity on the internet.

The X-37B has been rolled out because the military cannot afford to be without an independent launch capability:

care2.com/news/member/510010530/1527214

And so what if we’re paying the Russians for any help? It’s better now than during the Cold War when billions were being spent to make sure a few Russian ICBMs could be shot down before the rest destroyed the United States.

The F-22 is not dead but mothballed until it gets a new mission. Today’s threats are assymetrical, a bunch of guys running around with improvised explosives. UAVs armed with rockets can be flown by satellite uplink from bunkers in Texas. Other UAV designs are on the table.

The B-2 and so-called “stealth fighter” (F-117) are still capable of performing strategic missions. Guided free-fall bombs means you don’t have to drop as many to take out your target.

Wall Street helped seal the fate of the manned space program.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Joshua27]

I just choose to look at His return in a rational manner, that is, I refrain from looking for signs of the end times under every rock.

…but by all means, keep rationalizing. I’ve only pointed out one rock. lol.

First: Pet peeve of mine-the book is “Revelation”, as in singular. If you are going to discuss this intelligently, then first get the name of the book correct.

Second: Going off half-cocked through your own private interpretation is not the way to delve into the Scriptures. Linking the oil spill to wormwood is irresponsible and inane. First of all, it does not match the sign–1/3 of the worlds water and 1/3 of the life in the sea. Gulf of Mexico isn’t even close. And if you can point out how any of this ridiculously flawed interpretation is consistent with the Living Tradition of the Church, I would be grateful. Until you address these points, I will write you off as just another would-be doomsayer.

“Intellegently…?” It’s interesting how one envokes “the flaws of private interpretation” only then to provide their own flawed version.

Truly, linking the oil spill to Wormwood IS irresponsible and inane…and look who has done it. Go back to my starting post, if you need to. See that I’m not talking about “Wormwood”. Wormwood doesn’t even apprear until the ‘sounding of the Third Trumpet’ [Rev. 10-11], however I cited Rev. 8-9 [which is **The Second Trumpet]. Talk about “half-cocked”…

Read a little more before you attempt to disprove another.

…so full of one’s own knowledge, until one is proven as the fool.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The stealth fighter is NOT being fazed out. The F-22 is an air superiority craft that was slated to replace the F-15 Strike Eagle, the F-14 Tomcat, and the F/A-18 Hornet. The Stealth is the F-117. Also, the F-22 has been plagued by mechanical and avionics problems since its inception. IMHO, getting rid of the F-22 is the smartest thing Obama has done. (I’m not a fan of the guy, but I do believe in giving credit where it is due, and that misinformation should be squelched immediately).

The F-22 is an Air Force stealth fighter; it works just fine; but it is somewhat expensive; production is being halted at around 222 units. The F-117 has been mothballed; by the way the F-117 is not actually a fighter; it’s a light bomber; it has no guns or missiles or any air-to-air capability. The Navy F-14 and the Navy F/A-18 are not being replaced by the Air Force F-22; the F-14 has already been withdrawn from service to mothball status; the budget people declined to update the F-14 with the new more powerful engine that it needed.

The F/A-18 is still in production; the latest version is the EA-18G Growler, which is the jammer plane version. The Air Force has “declined” to produce a jammer plane, so the Growler will have to support both Air Force and Navy missions. The “G” was expedited by equipping it with the EA-6B jamming equipment, although some new electronics have recently come available.

The “plan” is to replace the F/A-18 and the F-16 and the A-10 with the F-35, which is supposedly a stealth ground attack aircraft available in three versions including a vertical take off version. However, it has only just recently made its first flight. With absolutely no operating experience since it has just made its first flights, there is absolutely no way of knowing if it will work or not. In addition the F-35 will be sold to foreign governments, so you can safely assume that just as soon as it enters foreign service, that the Soviets and the Chinese will have samples for their evaluation and copying. Because the military had so many engine problems with its aircraft such as the F-14, there had been a request to design and develop an alternate engine for the F-35; however, to save money, they changed their minds.

The Air Force HAD planned to replace the EF-111A jammer with a jammer version of the stealth F-35, which doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. But so many years will have had passed between the EF-111A being mothballed and the F-35 being introduced, that the Navy was requested to fill the gap with the 1950’s design A-6-based EA-6B. [First flight of the A-6 was April 1960.] The EA-6B is so slow that it cannot actually support the Air Force attack aircraft; which is why the F-117 was shot down and ended up in … [drum roll, please] … the Soviet Union. The A-6 wings also have cracks; the Navy contracted for new wings, but President Clinton ordered the aircraft dumped into the Atlantic Ocean to make fish reefs.

After a lot of embarrassment, the Air Force proposed to retrofit the … B-52 … with large jammer pods. Eventually, the Navy stepped up to the plate with the Growler, which began operations in 2009.

The “other plan” is to replace manned fighter and attack aircraft with drones.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

So, if you all are waiting for the government to ride in to the rescue with some whiz-bang new technology, your waiting will be sadly misplaced. You will be sorely disappointed.

During the Clinton administration, the R&D budget was focused mostly on things such as a stealth two-seater helicopter that flew just fine but had no actual mission and was cancelled. And also the V-22 transport “helicopter” that has a very limited capacity and such high rotor wash that it blows stuff away. There was some R&D money spent on computers and communications which is great stuff, but higher speed internet is not going to plug the hole.

 

[BryanM27]

The stealth fighter is NOT being fazed out. The F-22 is an air superiority craft that was slated to replace the F-15 Strike Eagle, the F-14 Tomcat, and the F/A-18 Hornet. The Stealth is the F-117. Also, the F-22 has been plagued by mechanical and avionics problems since its inception. IMHO, getting rid of the F-22 is the smartest thing Obama has done. (I’m not a fan of the guy, but I do believe in giving credit where it is due, and that misinformation should be squelched immediately).

To clarify, the F-22 is NOT intended to replace anything other than the F-15. The replacement for the F-14 is the F/A-18 Super Hornet (F-22 is not capable of carrier ops) and the replacement for the F/A-18 Hornet is the F-35 Lightning II Joint-Strike Fighter.

I haven’t heard anything about the F-22 being canned until this post, but even if it is true I have a feeling the Joint Chiefs will have something to say about it.

Bottom line, all aircraft suffer from mechanical and avionics problems early on. The F-14 was the longest-serving aircraft in the US arsenal at it’s retirement. This despite the fact that the early Pratt and Whitney turbofan engines constantly stalled out on the A-models.

The V-22 Osprey is now fully operational and is going through it’s first major overhaul since it first appeared in the field (main complaint is lack of armament).

And don’t even get me started on the AH-64 Apache helicopter…

 

[CWBetts]

To clarify, the F-22 is NOT intended to replace anything other than the F-15. The replacement for the F-14 is the F/A-18 Super Hornet (F-22 is not capable of carrier ops) and the replacement for the F/A-18 Hornet is the F-35 Lightning II Joint-Strike Fighter.

I haven’t heard anything about the F-22 being canned until this post, but even if it is true I have a feeling the Joint Chiefs will have something to say about it.

Bottom line, all aircraft suffer from mechanical and avionics problems early on. The F-14 was the longest-serving aircraft in the US arsenal at it’s retirement. This despite the fact that the early Pratt and Whitney turbofan engines constantly stalled out on the A-models.

The V-22 Osprey is now fully operational and is going through it’s first major overhaul since it first appeared in the field (main complaint is lack of armament).

And don’t even get me started on the AH-64 Apache helicopter…

I stand corrected. The information I had was second hand (though from a source close to the USAF).

 

[edwest2]

The goal of the military has always been faster, better, cheaper. The B-52, with upgrades, has been flying for how long? I can still look up in the sky and see the same contrails that I first saw in the 1960s.

Most of our enemies do not have advanced capabilities. Is anyone suggesting a land war with China? “Oh no. We can’t have that. Think of how many Walmarts we’d lose!”

And Russia, aside from some saber rattling, is not doing much.

The oil spill? It can be solved, it will just take time. If BP says it will put everything back the way it was, let’s wait and see.

God bless,
Ed

 

[BryanM27]

I stand corrected. The information I had was second hand (though from a source close to the USAF).

The information I have is from two years of Navy ROTC, what I hear from the friends that stayed in after I left, and discovery/history/military channel, so I cannot guarantee that it is up to date. However, to the best of my knowledge my previous post is accurate.

FUN FACT ALERT! What I do know, in case anyone is interested, about the F-22 is that aside from it’s already outrageous cost it will NEVER be capable of naval operations without a complete redesign. Apparantly there are two issues that General Dynamics had, the first being how to hide the tailhook without compromising stealth. The second is the durability of the airframe. The current equipment cannot handle the stress of carrier operations, and the airframe cannot accomodate a simple upgrade to the heavy-duty landing gear that would be required for those stresses.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The information I have is from two years of Navy ROTC, what I hear from the friends that stayed in after I left, and discovery/history/military channel, so I cannot guarantee that it is up to date. However, to the best of my knowledge my previous post is accurate.

FUN FACT ALERT! What I do know, in case anyone is interested, about the F-22 is that aside from it’s already outrageous cost it will NEVER be capable of naval operations without a complete redesign. Apparantly there are two issues that General Dynamics had, the first being how to hide the tailhook without compromising stealth. The second is the durability of the airframe. The current equipment cannot handle the stress of carrier operations, and the airframe cannot accomodate a simple upgrade to the heavy-duty landing gear that would be required for those stresses.

This whole mess is unreal.

Didn’t look this up, but I’m wondering if the F-22 would even fit in carrier’s elevator. Might need to fold the thing. The hinges and latches would “unstealth” the plane. What a nightmare.

The F-35 has three versions. Not worth my effort to study them; probably will be canceled before too much longer anyway. Screwed up mess.

Airplanes that get catapulted and do arrested landings tend to bend after a while. Most probably the stealth advantage would go away with the coatings breaking off and fuselage and wing “rash”. As Bryan said, the landing gear needs to be beefed up; most probably the stronger landing gear wouldn’t fit into the space available. Besides the Navy hates having to accept Air Force planes. They have done it a few times, but it took quite a while to do the modifications that the Navy demanded. The Air Force hates to use Navy planes, and would open their wrists to prevent it. They have done it with the A-7 and the F-4. And also the P-2 Neptune. I think they called it the RB-69 or some such.

If you have the time, read this article about the strenuous efforts the Air Force made to modify the A-3 into the B-66! Anything that could go wrong, did go wrong.

globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-66.htm

 

[BryanM27]

This whole mess is unreal.

Didn’t look this up, but I’m wondering if the F-22 would even fit in carrier’s elevator. Might need to fold the thing. The hinges and latches would “unstealth” the plane. What a nightmare.

The F-35 has three versions. Not worth my effort to study them; probably will be canceled before too much longer anyway. Screwed up mess.

Airplanes that get catapulted and do arrested landings tend to bend after a while. Most probably the stealth advantage would go away with the coatings breaking off and fuselage and wing “rash”. As Bryan said, the landing gear needs to be beefed up; most probably the stronger landing gear wouldn’t fit into the space available. Besides the Navy hates having to accept Air Force planes. They have done it a few times, but it took quite a while to do the modifications that the Navy demanded. The Air Force hates to use Navy planes, and would open their wrists to prevent it. They have done it with the A-7 and the F-4. And also the P-2 Neptune. I think they called it the RB-69 or some such.

If you have the time, read this article about the strenuous efforts the Air Force made to modify the A-3 into the B-66! Anything that could go wrong, did go wrong.

globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-66.htm

From what i’ve read, you’re exactly right about the 22. The airframe doesn’t have the space for stronger gear, although it isn’t the folding wings that would be the problem. The main issue to stealth is the tailhook.

As for the F-35 the versions are: Air Force (A model replacing the F-16), conventional take-off and landing; B model for the Marines (replacing all F/A-18 and Harriers), short/vertical take-off and landing; and the C model for the Navy (replacing F/A-18 A, B, C and D models, not Super Hornet E and F models).

 

[Monte_RCMS]

From what i’ve read, you’re exactly right about the 22. The airframe doesn’t have the space for stronger gear, although it isn’t the folding wings that would be the problem. The main issue to stealth is the tailhook.

As for the F-35 the versions are: Air Force (A model replacing the F-16), conventional take-off and landing; B model for the Marines (replacing all F/A-18 and Harriers), short/vertical take-off and landing; and the C model for the Navy (replacing F/A-18 A, B, C and D models, not Super Hornet E and F models).

I’m surprised the Navy kept any of the short-legged F/A-18 A, B, C and D models. It would be cheaper to replace those with E and F models which are almost a different airplane.

Boeing’s F-15 has been proposed in a “stealthified” version. “Probably” would be cheaper than the F-35.

The Marines should keep the AV-8B Harriers. Make a new buy with some upgrades. The Marines still fly the Huey, Huey Cobra and the CH-46. Probably new build CH-46 could replace the V-22.

What a screwed up mess.

The administration also cancelled the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain; not helpful for the nuclear reactor programs for future electric power.

Highly unlikely to be reversed, unless the Republicans take 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate so they can reappropriate various funding and pass it over a presidential veto.

The administration wants to terminate the C-17 and the Air Force has been playing chicken by not requesting money for it, forcing Congress to “force” the Air Force to accept the airplane. The Air Force also fought the C-130J.

AND THE AIR FORCE STILL DOESN’T HAVE A TANKER REPLACEMENT FOR THE KC-135!!!