Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on July 17, 2007, 10:22:24 AM
-
Pat Shanahan, mentioned in this story, used to be my first line supervisor in 1991. He actually gave me a retention (one of two allowed) when they laid off 400 tool makers in 1991.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22086910-1702,00.html?from=public_rss
Next step is to put the real laser weapon in the pod.
-
I heard these tests are usually a big scam. They're rigged to get the performance numbers they want. Even then, these ABS tests still often don't pass muster.
Also, given Boeings past on very large contracts like the tanker program, I wouldn't put 1% of trust in these results.
-
Originally posted by Choocha
I heard these tests are usually a big scam. They're rigged to get the performance numbers they want. Even then, these ABS tests still often don't pass muster.
Also, given Boeings past on very large contracts like the tanker program, I wouldn't put 1% of trust in these results.
You heard wrong. As for the tanker program, that was a conflict of interest issue, and had no bearing on technical performance. Boeing consistently delivers quality products and services. I should know, I'm one of those responsible for supporting our Armed Forces. I do so with pride.
-
This whole thing revolves around the "Dip Gyro".
-
What was wrong in the past with Boeings tankers??? The KC-135 program has been a great success. The air frame is reliable, and the upgrades over the years have done nothing but improve upon an already excellent aircraft.
Besides Boeing isn't building the laser, they just supplied the air frame and the 747 is reliable as hell.
Some of the greatest aircraft ever built were made by Boeing. I suppose you think the B-52 program was a big scam as well. Never mind that those planes are projected to serve for 100 years. What a piece of junk huh??? I suppose that since they built the worlds most advanced fighter aircraft that makes them more of a sucky company in your eyes as well.
-
Originally posted by Choocha
I heard these tests are usually a big scam. They're rigged to get the performance numbers they want. Even then, these ABS tests still often don't pass muster.
Also, given Boeings past on very large contracts like the tanker program, I wouldn't put 1% of trust in these results.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
What was wrong in the past with Boeings tankers??? The KC-135 program has been a great success. The air frame is reliable, and the upgrades over the years have done nothing but improve upon an already excellent aircraft.
Besides Boeing isn't building the laser, they just supplied the air frame and the 747 is reliable as hell.
Some of the greatest aircraft ever built were made by Boeing. I suppose you think the B-52 program was a big scam as well. Never mind that those planes are projected to serve for 100 years. What a piece of junk huh??? I suppose that since they built the worlds most advanced fighter aircraft that makes them more of a sucky company in your eyes as well.
The Chinook CH-47F just got a big contract. They've been around 44 years, 2nd oldest military design still being flown today.:aok
-
You guys are eating the cornbread.
Rip,
How many Boeing execs went to jail on the tanker program? Be honest, tell this forum the truth.
There's plenty of info. on the net about these fraud ABS tests. Just for warm-up watch this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/view/
Then do some more research before you bother me with you cornbread eating answers.
-
How many tankers are still flying??? One has nothing to do with the other. The tankers are exceptional aircraft with a long proud history of service that will continue for many more years. Besides the tanker program started back in the 50's. The folks that were making those shady deals back then are long gone. Or are you refering to Boeings new tanker program based on the 767 airframe?? I haven't heard anything negative about that program yet. From what I hear the Air Force really likes the new tanker and with any luck orders will be placed within the next few years.
But I'd really like to know what you have against Boeing?
-
Originally posted by Choocha
You guys are eating the cornbread.
Rip,
How many Boeing execs went to jail on the tanker program? Be honest, tell this forum the truth.
There's plenty of info. on the net about these fraud ABS tests. Just for warm-up watch this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/view/
Then do some more research before you bother me with you cornbread eating answers.
One man was fired (Mike Sears) and his mistress fired, due to the fact that he had an affair with her, and she worked for the DOD prior to the negotiation of the tanker deal. It was an ethics violation, and when dealing with government contracts, that means a prison term, which he received.
FWIW, the tanker deal is back on the board again. (http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/11200754286.htm)[/url]
Who was bothering who again? You came into this post with your drivel.
Next time come to the table with hard facts and data before you flap that pie hole of yours. I've yet to see you bring any evidence to the board that shows that this airborn laser is a crock.
And what the hell does cornbread have to do with a muffin man like you?
-
I happen to REALLY like cornbread. Especially with ham and bean soup, so please stop talking about cornbread in a disparaging way. Thanks. :furious
:D
-
Airbus has partnered with Northrup Grummen to compete in this program. Airbus clearly has a superior product that they intend to build in Alabama. All of Boeings shinanigins will help it...until they get caught and some more execs go to jail.
Back to original point, the ABS tests have been filled with controversy to say the LEAST. From out right lies to adding a little mustard to the numbers.
-
Airbus clearly has a superior product
====
there is a certain amount of risk anytime you teach a human being the ability to communicate.....
-
Originally posted by Choocha
Airbus has partnered with Northrup Grummen to compete in this program. Airbus clearly has a superior product that they intend to build in Alabama. All of Boeings shinanigins will help it...until they get caught and some more execs go to jail.
Back to original point, the ABS tests have been filled with controversy to say the LEAST. From out right lies to adding a little mustard to the numbers.
Facts.....
Data......
Please provide them.
-
there is also a FedEx MD11 that tested the laser pods pictures are on airliners.net
-
The Airbus KC-30 product fits the tanker program differently from the Boeing KC-767 product.
The Airbus is a bigger plane, and can carry more cargo along with fuel but is more expensive per copy. The KC-30 has a maximum fuel capacity of over 246,000 pounds. Even with a full fuel load, the aircraft has the capacity to carry 43 metric tons of cargo. The aircraft could also carry up to 272 passengers instead.
The KC-767 can be in more places at one time because it's lower price per copy allows more copies to be purchased. It can be based closer to the front because smaller size allows basing at smaller airfields. The 767 carries about the same fuel payload as the KC-135 (161,000 pounds without auxiliary fuel tanks, or 202,000 pounds with auxiliary fuel tanks). Like the A330, it can also carry passengers and cargo at the same time.
What is better depends on the mission. If one were clearly better, there would not be the need for a competition.
-
Actually Boeing recently upgraded to exceed the pounds of fuel that the KC-30 can carry. Competition is a great thing, when you're the consumer. :)
-
How did they do that?
GW 767 : 390,000 lbs
GW 330 : 480,000 lbs ...
the 330 is a much bigger airframe: 40 ft more wingspan, 30 ft longer.
-
Anyway, about the laser...
A MODIFIED Boeing 747 designed to be part of an emerging US antimissile shield has successfully completed an important flight test, the Pentagon's Missile Defence Agency and Boeing said today.
To simulate an intercept, the prototype Airborne Laser actively tracked an airborne target, compensated for atmospheric turbulence and fired a "surrogate" for a missile-zapping high-energy laser, they said.
"We have now demonstrated most of the steps needed for the Airborne Laser to engage a threat missile and deliver precise and lethal effects against it," said Pat Shanahan, a vice president at Boeing, the prime contractor.
Speed of light
Air Force Lieutenant Colonel John Daniels, the Pentagon's program manager, said the test on Saturday marked an historic day for "directed-energy" weapons firing at the speed of light, or 186,000 miles per second.
"This will fundamentally change the way we engage and destroy fleeting targets," he said.
The airborne laser is to be the first warplane relying entirely on a directed energy device as a weapon. It is designed to destroy an enemy ballistic missile shortly after it is launched, in the "boost phase" of its flight path.
The program will have cost about $US5 billion ($5.75 billion) from its inception in the early 1990s through a scheduled test intercept test of a mock enemy missile in August 2009, Lt-Col Daniels said.
The modified Boeing 747-400F took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California. It used its infrared sensors and a tracking laser to zero in on a "target board" on an Air Force aircraft, Boeing said.
Passive to active tracking
The aircraft fired the tracking laser at the target aircraft, dubbed Big Crow, for the first time on March 15. The test on Friday demonstrated an ability to go from passive tracking of a simulated missile engine "plume" to active tracking, Boeing said.
In addition, the Lockheed Martin Corp. beam control and fire control system was used to offset atmospheric turbulence in conjunction with the active tracking and firing of the device standing in for the chemical oxygen-iodine laser, the company said.
Engineers will start installing the actual high-energy laser, built by Northrop Grumman Corp, in coming months to prepare for the intercept test.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is designed to destroy an enemy ballistic missile shortly after it is launched
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trick is, is being in the right country that wants to toss a nuke at you, at the right time, eh???
I thought this thing was designed to shoot down inbound, not outbound, rockets?
-
The Airbus offering did not fit the Air Force's requirements...period. Tankers are assets referred to as "high-demand, low density". It does no good to have two aircraft with the X-amount of fuel when you need to support three simultainious/near-simultainious ops. Versatility in supporting these type of hi-tempo operations was the requirement Airbus was unable to support. Don't buy a luxury liner if a Liberty ship will do the job.
As has already been noted, those Boeing personnel involved in the tanker program scandal were punished, and significant changes made throughout Boeing to try to insure it doesn't happen again. Boeing also paid healthy fines as well. As also noted, the ABL is not just a Boeing program, but is divided amoung quite a few aerospace companies.
FrodeMk3 said: "I thought this thing was designed to shoot down inbound, not outbound, rockets?"
The operational concept for missile defense is multi-tiered. The easiest time to destroy an ICBM is in the boost phase. That's what the ABL is for. It orbits in-theater, just over the boarder for example, and tries to knock the missile down during boost. Effective range is 100-miles plus, if I recall from unclassified sources. If it does not succeed, than terminal defense takes over (the US "Missile Shield" of ground-based interceptors and ship-based interceptors). Hope that clears it up.
-
Sabre,
I did not know that they had passed on the Airbus tanker option just yet. They are reporting it here that the possibility of adding in the production facility down in Mobile hasn't been locked in but they are still in the evaluation phase.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Facts.....
Data......
Please provide them.
Choocha,
I gotta stand with Rip on this.
If your going to spew out words you claim to be facts here.
You'd do well to provide Data and facts and actual sources if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
-
The 747 must be 100 miles from the launch point. BOY THATS REAL PRACTICAL. All ARE PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED NOW.
The range of the laser appears to be 100 miles, that doesn't mean the 747 MUST be 100 miles from the launch point.....cornbread eatter!! :D
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Sabre,
I did not know that they had passed on the Airbus tanker option just yet. They are reporting it here that the possibility of adding in the production facility down in Mobile hasn't been locked in but they are still in the evaluation phase.
Airbus has in fact been lobbying for the Air Force to re-evalute their requirements. However, I don't see it happening. I'm not sure why some are so hostile to Boeing, unless they're just America haters:p . They have, and continue to provide excellent products and services to my country and many countries around the world. Sounds a bit like sour grapes over the A380 debacle:cry . Seriously, I admire Airbus in many ways, but having flown on aircraft by both countries, and talked to pilots who have flown both, I believe Boeing builds the superior products. They also build many other excellent products (GPS satellites, many commercial satellites) and other services (I've seen SeaLaunch up close, and it's a friggin' awsome system). Like any company, there are ups and down, good products and not so good. However, the company stock has been on a steady climb since the low of 9/11, and the 787 is selling like hot cakes. You be the judge.
-
Originally posted by Choocha See Rules #4, #5[/B]
Ah, well, now we get to the bottom of his troll rant....:rolleyes:
-
See Rules #4, #5
====
Nothing tastes as good as fresh hot cornbread just out of the oven, topped with butter and strawberry jam.
As far as the ABL, keep developing the technology. Sure beats just sitting there, unless of course we are sitting there, eating fresh hot cornbread just out of the oven, topped with butter and strawberry jam :D
-
Originally posted by Choocha
See Rules #4, #5
3rd attempt, no links....just like arguing with RPM ,MT and Crockett:D
-
See Rules #4, #5
====
all OUR problems.
Im not too picky about speeling but please try and use the correct WORD.
m'k ?
-
Originally posted by Choocha
See Rules #4, #5
Airbus products are markedly inferior to Boeing products IMHO. But, hey, don't mind me, I was a line mechanic for Delta back when we had all the foreign contracts coming into MCO, which meant we worked a lot of Airbus garbage. Northrop Grumman partnering with Airbus is just plain sick in my eyes.
As for the 747 ABM defense system, 100 miles is a long way for a theater based defense weapon. IE. Think the mideast. It was never intended to be flying race tracks around the US just waiting for a MIRV to come splashing through the atmosphere. It's true intent are weapons like the SCUD, North Korean Taepodong II and Iranian Shahab-4. Thinking along those lines, a couple of these defensive weapons deployed off the coasts of North Korea, border of Iran, and most other middle eastern countries borders or coasts and you very quickly have the ability to shut down the risk of such a rogue state launching a Chemical, Nuclear, or Conventional Attack with ICBM or even Theater based Missiles.
As for ABM technology being a sham, apparently you did not witness a Patriot battery engaging Scud Missiles during the Gulf War? While not 100% accurate, they saved many Israeli and Coalition lives.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I happen to REALLY like cornbread. Especially with ham and bean soup, so please stop talking about cornbread in a disparaging way. Thanks. :furious
:D
Yeah, what he said, especially if there are chopped red onions to go with the ham and bean soup!!! :furious
-
Home-made chili beans, made with some pinto's soaked for 24 hours, and a little Tri-tip, white onion, tad bit of garlic, hamburger...THAT'S what goes well with cornbread!
-
Originally posted by Choocha
See Rules #4, #5
A man that doesn't like cornbread just doesn't have the proper perspective.
-
Interesting news today:
Boeing on Friday was awarded a U.S. Army contract valued at approximately $7 million to begin developing a truck-mounted laser weapon system that can destroy rockets, artillery shells and mortar rounds
-
See Rule #5
-
I remember reading about this laser system 15 years ago. It recieved 3 pages in the "Future Warplanes" book I have which was published around the 90s I think. Funny to see them get it going.
What rock did you crawl out from Choocha?
-
Holy Karma, Batman!
I was called into my boss's office today. I was name the senior project manager for a 767 tanker IT project and am officially "on loan" to the program! (it is an IT project) That's all I can say now, except that I am a bit excited, a bit nervous and can't wait for the next 90 days to transpire!:aok
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Holy Karma, Batman!
I was called into my boss's office today. I was name the senior project manager for a 767 tanker IT project and am officially "on loan" to the program! (it is an IT project) That's all I can say now, except that I am a bit excited, a bit nervous and can't wait for the next 90 days to transpire!:aok
WTG Rip!:aok
Just got to start working on a program I've wanted to work on for a couple of years now. I know how you feel.
Mark
-
Originally posted by Choocha
See Rule #5
So how many times has Boeing executives gotten in trouble over defense contracts? Anyone know?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Holy Karma, Batman!
I was called into my boss's office today. I was name the senior project manager for a 767 tanker IT project and am officially "on loan" to the program! (it is an IT project) That's all I can say now, except that I am a bit excited, a bit nervous and can't wait for the next 90 days to transpire!:aok
Hot dan, Rip! Congrats, dude.
-
Thanks Sabre and Mark. Man, just got off a 2 hour telecon. I'm REALLY nervous now! LOL!