US Missile Defense exercise tonight.. [Archive]

DrCorvette

07-07-2000, 11:55 AM

Toad you don't understand. Just because we signed a treaty on NO ANTI-BALLISTIC Missiles why can't we violate it? We did the Indians that way, and more recently in SE Colorado, land we deemed worthless now has a wealth of oil reserves and we're gonna try to take it from them. On the missile part, IMO=>> "In the interest of national security, the safety and heath and wellbeing of all the animals and inhabitants of planet Earth come in secondary to the big business contractors and the other folks who have a hand in the military machine of the US. The ones involved in this fiasco all are of supreme importance and you and I are inconsequential in the big picture. We must remember that the corporations involved in the military are first in the scheme of things and the survival of the US citizens are of minimal or no importance. " and "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your country" We can only guess what the world would be like today if John F. had not been killed, a smoking ruin or a better place to live, I like to think the latter. And , I'm not a big fan of the Democratic or Republican party. I favor Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, both will never be elected to president, we refuse them. Give us Someone like Clinton or Gore,, ugggghh, sorry , so much drivel, I need a bibb.. DrVette

narayan

07-07-2000, 02:35 PM

I hope it is a success! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif God Bless America!

Underclocked

07-07-2000, 02:38 PM

But, this may well be a PRO-BALLISTIC MISSILE.

brandon184

07-07-2000, 03:46 PM

Im not sure what the huge deal is that you guys are making. They did pretty much this EXACT same thing last October.

- Brandon

OuTpaTienT

07-07-2000, 05:03 PM

The technology we are testing is DEFENSIVE in nature. It is not to threaten or cause harm to any one on the planet. It is SOLELY for intercepting and stoping any missles that might be coming our country's soil. And maybe in due time it'll protect our allies soil as well.

The best offense is a good defense (in this case).

Warthog

07-07-2000, 05:50 PM

This is actually the third test of sixteen (supposedly). I see nothing wrong with defending our country.

Warthog

brandon184

07-07-2000, 06:35 PM

Isn't Canada already joint or thinking of joining the US in this?

- Brandon

ILC

07-07-2000, 07:17 PM

About time we start testing. I think its great. To bad the great Clinton administration wont give more funding to this prgram but they believe in giving away our ICBM secrets, instead of making us safer. Seems like they think the best defense is no defense at all. Hmmm....go figure.

Anyway, that no anti-ballistic treaty was made with RUSSIA, lol why uphold a treaty that was made with a country that no longer exhists?

ILC

wtp

07-07-2000, 07:34 PM

**** it! what time do you think will it reach torrance! i wanna see it!.

wtp

socalgal

07-07-2000, 07:40 PM

It's pro-active defensive testing. Granted it won't stop incoming from the ground or ships - that's another national security matter, but in another 4 or so years when/if Korea has their weaponry ready to strike, we'll be ready to stop them - or anyone else, providing we keep testing and perfecting.

Is this a political rather than strategic move? Pretty close to election time isn't it. That's one of my *thoughts* on this.

IMHO, we need more defense and military spending to safeguard ourselves - our country - from threats in the future. To not move forward is to fall back.

In any case, I'm looking forward to the display in the sky tonite (if indeed I even see it!) http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif Check out the Fact Sheet. Go Vandenburg AFB!

http://mocc.vafb.af.mil/launchsched.asp

[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 07-07-2000).]

socalgal

07-07-2000, 09:18 PM

MinuteMan is being launched NOW!

CNN TV

[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 07-07-2000).]

wtp

07-07-2000, 09:33 PM

****, i can't see it!

Warthog

07-07-2000, 09:42 PM

Socalgal, is this close to your career field?

Anyone know if it worked yet?

Warthog

thekingofpain

07-07-2000, 09:54 PM

Saw part of it from here...LOOKED EXPLOSIVE!
not sure what I saw tho?

Guess it missed, ahhh whats a 100 million?

[This message has been edited by thekingofpain (edited 07-08-2000).]

socalgal

07-07-2000, 10:45 PM

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, to some http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif ), the Pentagon is now reporting that the test has failed.

From what I'm understanding, preliminary reporting is that the second stage signal failed from the onboard computer to activate the proper sequence to activate the kill vehicle to be released from the booster.

The actual hit was supposed to happen in +/- one hour from now.

[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 07-07-2000).]

wtp

07-07-2000, 10:58 PM

**** it, i didn't see it!!! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif sorry for my language.. NEVER seen one, and I blew it.

wtp http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

socalgal

07-07-2000, 11:49 PM

WTP, I stepped outside about 10 minutes or so after the missile launch. It's hard to describe... but I think I saw it. It was the size of a bright star in the sky; small yet bright with a red dot of light on it. It was moving.

If indeed it was the missile I was watching, it wasn't that *spectacular* to see with the naked eye, except for the realization that this is a man-made piece of machinery shooting into space, with all the combined knowledge, work, blood, sweat and tears of hundreds of rocket scientists and engineers - some of the finest minds in the world. That's what makes it most spectacular to me. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Warthog, I work in administration for a company in the aerospace industry. The company I work for designs and manufactures flight controls for all types of aircraft and some military land vehicles. There's nothing flying that doesn't have our controls in them.

[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 07-07-2000).]

bkehoe

07-08-2000, 02:57 AM

"There's nothing flying that doesn't have our controls in them."

Hmm. So if I go out and catch something flying it'll have something your company made in it? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Hmm, I'm off to round up the cats, and get them to get me a bird of some kind.....brb. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

Brendan

OuTpaTienT

07-08-2000, 04:05 AM

hmmmm. buzz, buzz, buzz.....

tonym

07-08-2000, 06:40 AM

Socalgal,

In the Woodland Hills Area?? Like Litton GCS???? I spent a lot of time there in the early-mid 80's as the company I worked for did a lot of subcontracting for Litton. Oh, those bad old days of the Cold War!!!!

Just a guess...

Tony

DrCorvette

07-08-2000, 07:32 AM

To all, I hope my mixture of Dry Humor, Stupidity and seriousness is obvious. To SOCAL quote "Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, to some ), the Pentagon is now reporting that the test has failed." "FAILED" is a term our military uses frequently , as you know, they use disinformation to throw off those who try to scrape any information about these projects that they can and divulge them to sources that may not be in the best interest of the USA.. regards, DrVette

socalgal

07-08-2000, 07:54 AM

lol, this is why I generally avoid threads like this http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif JK

bkehoe, ok smartaleck http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif Not "those" kinds of birds, or frisbees, or ... "There's nothing flying that doesn't have our controls in them." is now amended to: "There are no aircraft flying that don't have our controls in them." http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

OuTpaTienT: Are you okay? http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif (AFAIK, the flying object 'OuTpaTienT' doesn't appear on our customer list) http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

tonym: no, not Litton. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

DrVette: I never said I "believed" what the Govt/Pentagon reported, I was merely "reporting" - paraphrasing, as it were, CNN's televised Pentagon special report, but... The truth is out there somewhere! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

darn kb. Thought I got away without having to edit.

[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 07-08-2000).]

DrCorvette

07-08-2000, 08:02 AM

http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif The truth is out there somewhere. This reminds me of watching the X-Files, when the show started the whistling intro, I'd whistle along. My giant 16# cat, Smokey, would yowl and roll about on the floor. Soon the cat let me know his displeasure in this by standing up on the chair and drawing back a paw in a motion suggesting, "If you don't stop that ****, I'm gonna knock you out, You're hurting my ears" Yea, you're right, I quit.. poor kitty. DrVette

[This message has been edited by DrCorvette (edited 07-08-2000).]

clinny

07-08-2000, 01:35 PM

Well that worked well didn't it....... http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net/hapfac01.gif

Dputiger

07-08-2000, 03:51 PM

Well, come now, let's be fair: There are other possible uses for an ABM system. For instance, let's say that Russia, or even the US had a technical failure or a miscommunication that brought us to a point where missles were in the air.

Up until now, there was no way to stop the missles once they were launched. A functioning ABM system could, in theory, prevent a catastrophic mistake.

Besides: The problem with being in military research and design is that people never know what kind of technology they need until its too late. If, ten years from now, a rogue state pointed missles at the US and we believed they'd use them, we'd be screaming for a defense system.

ILC

07-08-2000, 06:02 PM

Ah great, we got one of those "The cold war is over, why do we need a military" types in here.

Finger: No offense but im not even going to attempt with your last statement. Your right, why do we need any protection at all? Military? WHAT WHY?!?! The cold war is over! I know lets put it into welfare!

ILC

OuTpaTienT

07-08-2000, 06:16 PM

Yahoo! Maps - Driving Directions
------------------------------------
Starting From: San Francisco
Arriving At: Santa Rosa
Distance: 55.0 miles
Approximate Travel Time: 1 hours 14 mins

finger51

07-08-2000, 07:53 PM

ILC- I am all for a strong military both here and abroad. My point is that the money being spent on this particular set up is money wasted. Many people said we need lots and lots of nuclear weapons. But what are these weapons doing at the moment. Rusting. Who knows if they will even work when the time of need arises. I'd rather see the money spent on better border surveilence. Whether that means more people better planes/boats.

OuTpaTienT-

I don't even know what your point of that was -?-
San Francisco is on the tip of a pretty long peninsula. One could pilot a boat all the way down past palo alto and sunnyvale.

[This message has been edited by finger51 (edited 07-08-2000).]

Warthog

07-08-2000, 08:04 PM

Russia no longer being a "threat", doesn't mean diddly squat.

Like Socalgal said, there is also N. Korea, and I might add, China. There are also enemies in the Middle East. I believe Iraq just tested a new short range missile (correct me if I'm wrong). The "Scud" ICBM was able to reach Israel during Desert Storm - it was in fact, fired at Israel. They could've loaded a nuke on one (if they had it - might have been possible) and sent it on over to our friend, Israel. No way to defend against it.

Lets say this happens in the future - another country fires a nuke at an Ally. We fire an ABM and shoot it down. Done.

*****edit
In response to your theory of a nuke in San Francisco, there are different sizes that nukes can come in. There are small tactical nukes that were made to fire out of artillery rounds and large nukes meant to easily level large cities. Also, the impact would be severely lessened by the fact that it would be detonated on the ground. An air burst would be much more widespread.

Warthog

[This message has been edited by Warthog (edited 07-08-2000).]

Dputiger

07-08-2000, 08:11 PM

Well, it's not THAT easy. In the long wrong, it may be a 'Star Wars' type of system and not a missile based system that is more effective.

Now, before you all start laughing... http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

Obviously, 'Star Wars' is not a possibility today. Nevertheless, it makes far more sense to blast a missile with a laser beam then to attempt to intercept it with another missile. (assuming we could accurately do either).

A space-based platform could defend a far larger area with greater speed. If an ICBM moves at 1,000 miles an hour (just an example) then our interceptor must move far faster in order to intercept the missile and knock it out before it reaches its target.

DrCorvette

07-08-2000, 08:29 PM

Now that I think it over a bit, I think something smells FISHY. They are trying to tell us an ABM System is being developed, Yea Right. In 1975 or so during my military craze, we got to see some footage of "ABM" tests. One missile was called the Sprite, the other was Sprint. The Sprite was the fastest of the two, it accellerated from sea level to 30,000 ft in about 1.5 seconds, no typo here, it went BANG, and was there. No delay of liftoff. The fuselage was about 30" in dia and the fireball was about 10' diameter. just fyi, DrVette

ILC

07-08-2000, 08:42 PM

Finger: My apologies on misunderstandign you. I always seem to jump to conclusions, one of my many downflaws.

Although I still disagree with you. I definetly think we need a ABM system. Possibly more now then ever. The reason for all the nuclear build up was to keep russia scared, and they built up to do the same with us. Basically all the cold war was, was a bunch of bluffs and frighten the **** out of the other one. Anyways im way off topic and dont know why.

Unfortuanetly there will be a next world war, IMHO. And unfortunetly it will most likely end with ICBM's. The ABM system is an insurance for us. Will we ever use it? Who knows. ut I would feel alot better knowing we had one. As of terrorism, you are right it would be easy to do what you are saying, but those nukes would be small ones, not the East Coast destroying ICBM's the ABM would be desigend to prevent against.

ILC - Did my post make sense>?

Glynn R Harris

07-08-2000, 08:57 PM

Hey, our nuclear missles ALL did their job exactly as intended. They were there, ready to be launched.

Oh, no--- we didn't have to actually USE them... was that bad??? LOL http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif

I personally think every dime "rusting" (actually decommissioned VERY carefully and stored as waste now) was a dime incredibly well-spent.

I do not know the particulars of this ABM system as proposed/tested; perhaps it needs work, or will not do the job.

If we do NOT spend the money THIS way, whattaya wanna bet we'll be developing a means of doing same job via satellite, or high-energy beams, or some other more esoteric (ahem, expensive) way?

Because the job needs to be done, regardless of threats posed by land, ship, internal terrorism, etc. If you intend on the DEFENSE of a country, you plan for ALL contingencies, and to the degree the potential threat exists.

Does a threat exist from missile attack? Maybe you don't feel a threat exists. I can't presume to know the hearts and minds and motivations of world leadership today.

But I do know that other countries like China, North Korea, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, Syria (in addition to the ones we ally ourselves with like Israel, Great Britain, France, etc.) have devoted immense resources of their own to develop and in some cases deploy missile systems.

That, to me, leads to a Q.E.D.-- the threat exists, and an ABM development program OF SOME SORT AND TO SOME DEGREE is appropriate. The longer the range and the greater the deiverability of the ballistic systems being developed, the greater the threat.

How early should we begin planning and developing an umbrella or protection for ourselves? When China's system (which they sell to others as well as deploy for themselves) is capable of a 3500-mile throw? Now. Or a 7000-mile range? Perhaps next year. Or a 12,000-mile range?

Tell us all how backward they are technologically and how they can't afford the military expenditure, and how they would never bother to be so elaborate, so we may determine how long we need to wait to create a plan to respond.

Our republic is neat! We get to debate whether our money is being well-spent. We get to choose a path for ourselves.

I only hope we don't ever forget that we, too, are responsible for our own survival. We cannot "depend on the kindness" of every nation, every leader, every military.

We NEED defenses... and we shall no doubt need to fix many aspects of our military, but this is important: we will Never "outgrow" a need for a Naval defense, nor a Coastal, nor an Air, nor Land, nor Terrorist, and now, in this world where missiles exist, we will Always need a Missile defense.

We've been LATE on this one... and we have eviscerated some of the others, and don't expect that getting it together will be easy or cheap.

http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif Peace. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif

alondra

07-08-2000, 09:00 PM

still organizing my thoughts on this one.
fishy, politics,money.
remember the president that warned us of the military, industrial complex??? He was a General. I do.

Dputiger

07-08-2000, 09:24 PM

Well as far as I'm aware, 1975 was when an anti-ballistic missile system became theoretically possible. Who knows? Maybe we could shoot down a missile in 1975?

On the other hand, our best boomers and fast-attack subs in 1975 would sound noisy as hell to any sonar operator today--and I'm guessing that a modern sub can pick up a twenty-five year old sub no sweat.

Military technology changes and adapts. What worked in 1975 might not work today.

finger51

07-09-2000, 12:52 AM

The alledged threat of ballistic missile attack on our country by a "rogue" state is such a load of bull I can't even beleive people buy into it. The main argument for this new defense system is to defend ourselves and our allies against attack from some small rogue nations who are trying to develop missiles.
The money being spent on this new system is unfathomable. Billions upon billions of dollars to defend against an attack that will never come.
If these rogue states really wanted to nuke or nerve us, they could do it without spending millions or billions of their own money in developing a missile system that would be capable of sending a nuke our way. Why would they when they could very easily and cheaply load that sucker onto a barge and drive it right into the SF Bay. They would take out one of the most major economic/technological centers the US has and even though we wasted billions on our super cool missile defense system. We'd be ruined with one bomb. Done. Santa Rosa (the heart of silicon valley) is about one mile from the shores of the SF bay. They wouldn't need to take out any military sites simply because we are so much more vulnerable economically.
Now Lets talk about the aerospace industry. Do you think they were particularly happy about the demise of the U.S.S.R. ? No freakin' way! They saw that as a meal ticket going out the window. No more need for all these fancy (read as expensive) gew-gaws to protect us from the red menace. Do not think they haven't been busy out in D.C. trying to persuade our government officials that a new menace is just around the corner. and there are newer cooler gew-gaws (read as really expensive) that can protect us from them.

The money is being wasted and I am kinda pissed off that our officials are so GD short sited.

DrCorvette

07-09-2000, 06:49 AM

The information given to the Average American citizen pales in comparison to what is shown to those in military service. The enemy nations know much more than any non-service person. Films shown in service give a large morale boost when you see the actual capabilities of some systems. Does anyone really believe that a nuclear carrier can only do 32 knots, or a SR-71 only do Mach 3? The USS Forrestall (The Zippo) can approach 60 mph! The SR-71 speed is debatable, however the leading edge temperature comes close to 3000 F. The windshield temperature is so hot if the pilots didn't wear space suits they'd be cooked. Dis-information is what all military's live on.. Stretch the capabilities of some systems and understate those of others. I suppose I'm the only one to see the ballistic launch system in a neutral zone between the US and Canada, for some reason in 79 or so, the US made this public. A view from a plane showed a 300' section of the earth, trees and all, open up. Then a large cannon barrel emerged, When it fired it sounded like a 30/06 being fired in a quiet valley, KERR-POWWWW. The projectile was not visible to the naked eye. The stats said that this system could fire a dummy load 2800 miles with no rocket charge attached. They mentioned Cuba I think in the commentary, as I remember. Perhaps this was "more" exagerrated dis-information due to tensions being rather high at the time, I haven't the foggiest idea. This was aired on CBS evening news, the pre-release comment was "Due to the sensitive nature of this broadcast, no details will be realease until air time".. most sincerely, DrVette

Variable

07-09-2000, 07:04 AM

I think an ABM system is a good idea!

Dputiger

07-09-2000, 09:49 AM

<shrugs>

I don't really care about our hdiden military capabilities, frankly. If I was in charge of the military I certainly wouldn't reveal all the capabilities of the machines under my command.

As wonderful as a republican system of government is, there's never been an army in history that functioned as a democratic body.

I'd also be willing to buy that our enemies know more about our military technology than we do in certain areas, but I'd still bet we've got a few toys that they don't know much about.

After all, knowing about an American nuclear sub won't necessarily help you find it in the water. Though America hasn't fought a major war in decades I don't know of any nation on earth with a military capable of facing ours in an offensive war and prevailing.

akaBruno

07-09-2000, 10:27 AM

It's a simple fact that our ABM technology is still infantile in actual application. It was a science-fiction type of dream when it started but, there is a matter of fact, fear we have to realize as threatening these days. It's not the high tech knowlege leaking from our shores, but that being sold to 3rd world countries, from the former Soviet Union. Those treaties that kept them from trading that information are those falling apart.

It's an unanticipated part of the Soviet collapse, that has become our biggest threat. It seems that the point of launch is being spread throughout the globe.

Let's just all pray that our ABM technology can stay ahead, of the spread, of the threat. Perhaps this failure will spur Congress on to financing somthing that will actually work. Perhaps it's time for a new approach, whether that be new tecnology, or a new peaceful approach to deterence.

In any case scenerio, it is an important road we have to travel.

Bruno

ILC

07-09-2000, 06:45 PM

For once I agree wit Bruno http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

It gets on my nerves when people think that they should know everything and every detail of our military. They think that becuase tax payer dollars pay for it, then we should know about it....grrrrrrrr. I would prefer the days when a toilet seat cost $10,000 and toilet paper costed $1,000 http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

ILC

Gutter Ball

07-09-2000, 08:25 PM

If the US gets their ABM working, you can bet those "rogue" countries will be working on how to get around it. Stealth missiles perhaps? If the US can make a stealth plane, I'm sure someone can make a stealth missile, or something like that http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Heck, why not just launch all their nukes? That way, maybe one will sneak by http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Not that I'm complaining, us docile Canadians will probably benefit from it too!

Warthog

07-09-2000, 09:56 PM

One of the ways they detect an ICBM launch, is by satellites seeing the launch. I'm sure there is a way to make a "stealth" missile, but it would be costly. The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber costs around $50 million. An F-16 (I think) costs about $15-20 million. I do know for a fact, that the A-10 Warthog costs $8 million http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif. I know that a missile would cost considerably less, but the added cost of stealth material would be very much.

Then again, the payoff of a nuke, biological or chemical warhead detonating in America would be catastrophic.

Warthog

Warthog

07-10-2000, 12:19 AM

I believe what the Doc said.

If the military gave away exact figures of their weaponry, other countries would say, "We just have to make it do this or better and we have a weapon greater than or equal to that of the Americans". But in reality their weapon might be inferior to ours, despite what they think.

Warthog

Glynn R Harris

07-10-2000, 02:05 AM

Stealth, in the missile sense, is sort of a misnomer. In ballistics, there are just some things you can't cover, as well as a few things you can't detect.

We'll always know a missle is coming, IF launched from earth or water, because it has a certain speed and trajectory that you can't hide or cover. (Space launch, however is a whole different subject).

Even a tumbler (or one designed to fire mini-engines after its ascent to vary its angle of approach) has to come down according to gravity. You can calculate (in what leisure time you have) what that path will be.

On the other hand, a decoy strategy is useful: multiple projectiles, some real, some dummy, released at the top--- if your enemy's missile gets that far, it will certainly be unprofitable to try and hit every target, but since they all fall in the same way, regardless of mass, how do you know which ones are nuclear and which are rolled-up newspaper? You can't...

Which is precisely why you must identify a launch early (satellites), and shoot the mothers down before they get to the release point and have their "babies". The time window to pull this off is incredibly small, and if multiple missiles are going up, they must ALL be "neutralized" in the first half of their overall flight.

What a job, I wouldn't want it. Maybe we can't ever trust what the military SAYS, but I hope like heck we can trust them to get things done... I know I count on them.

800XL

07-10-2000, 02:20 AM

Everyone remember the Arcade game Missile Command? Funny thing is, the engineers working on the project probably grew up playing it...

MadMatt

07-10-2000, 07:33 AM

Hey Warthog, where do you get your figures?

The the Selected Aquisition Report (a Document that Congress uses to track the cost of major U.S. weapons projects) values the B-2 program at $45 billion. With 21 aircraft built, that works out at $2.14 BILLION each!!

F-16C/D - $26.9 million each

A-10 - $8.8 million (in 1976!)

Truth be told, the B-2 would cost alot less per if they built the planned 120 units. I think I'd gladly trade in two of those for a new space shuttle or Nimitz class carrier....

Still, it was quite an awesome sight last weekend when one flew over my house at about 1500 feet!

[This message has been edited by MadMatt (edited 07-10-2000).]

Warthog

07-10-2000, 08:03 AM

Sorry I wasn't "dead on" but I wasn't quoting from a book. Just trying to remember what they were from my head.

But I coulda sworn the B-2 was NOT that much. Could someone else verify this? That's a few thousand times what other planes are.

*EDIT*
Ok...just found the exact figures (we were both wrong http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif): $865 million according to Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide.

Oh yeah...the request was shortened from 132 to 20 B-2s.

I'm a fan of another, new stealth airplane, the F-22. That bad boy rocks. It costs $61 million per fighter.

Warthog

[This message has been edited by Warthog (edited 07-10-2000).]

MadMatt

07-10-2000, 11:00 AM

Sorry Warthog, but the $2.14 billion figure comes from the Congressional Budget Office. Janes' $865 million per likely does not include development costs. And, yes, they are by far the most expensive aircraft ever built - even the new Air Force One's are a relative bargain at only about $350 million apiece.

Also from the CBO, U.S. taxpayers will be paying $187 million + for each F-22 Raptor.

BTW, UNICEF estimates that ALL hunger on planet earth could be alleviated for less than $10 Billion per year. Kinda makes ya think....

[This message has been edited by MadMatt (edited 07-10-2000).]

DrCorvette

07-10-2000, 05:31 PM

B-2 Stealth Bomber,Unit cost: Approximately $750 million

Date Deployed: December 1993

Air Force Inventory: Active force: 20 planned http://home.europa.com/~ab/aircraft/spirit/ AND=>> B-2 Unit cost: Approximately $1.3 billion
Date Deployed: December 1993
Inventory: Active force: 21 http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_2_Spirit.html and =>> the B-2 Unit cost: Approximately $2.1 billion
Date Deployed: December 1993
Inventory: Active force: 21 http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm Maintaining the $2.4 billion B-2 bomber's stealthy skins has proven so difficult that Air Force officials last October, directed six days of repair time be performed for every flying day http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/970527-b2.htm Year Number of Bombers Total Estimated Program Cost Estimated Cost per B-2
1986 133 $58.2 Billion13 $437 million
June 1989 133 $70.2 Billion13 $528 million
early 1990 133 $75.4 Billion13 $567 million
April 1990 75 $61.1 Billion13 $820 million
1994 20 $44.65 Billion1 $2.2 Billion http://www.cdi.org/issues/aviation/B296.html regarding the B-2's anti-grav technology http://www.ufomind.com/area51/list/1997/oct/a10-002.shtml
this is just to illustrate how pricing is confusing at best. Depending on which phase of construction of any military project, the costs should decrease with increased production. DrVette

ILC

07-10-2000, 06:32 PM

Ok, probally the truth is if you look at 10 different places for the price of the b-2 you are gonna get ten different numbers. Personally I dont think any of those umbers are right. Unless someone who is on here is a congressman, whos on the defense commitee Im gonna be a little skeptical on the price, although im sure it probally is in the billions for the planes. Everything on the B-2 and F-117 was brand new, state of the art technology, and is still highly classifeid. Thats why they are so expensive. I think I read somewhere that the B-2 has the radar signature of a hummingbird, and virtually no IR trail. Anyways...

It was said why dont people build a stealth missle, wel for one thing, we know when a missle is launched, how? Satelites detect the heat when its being launched. Second NORAD tracks everything in earth's atmosphere and orbit that is bigger hten a screwdriver. Third, who can really afford a stealth missle. It may not actually cost that much to build one, but reasearch costs for anything truly stealth is astronoical. Why do you think Britain, or China, or Russia, or anyone else have stealth planes? Cost is to high, and only the U.S. can afford one. Well what I just said is pure opion. I have no clue what other countries or ourselves have top secret. Im sure there is something awesome out there. : )

ILC

Dputiger

07-10-2000, 08:48 PM

Actually, Bruno, I disagree with the letter (but not I think with the spirit) of what you said.

Our problem is not that corporations run farming. The corporation, in fact, is a far more efficient device than the small business.

The problem is that in our society, pure profit, not human decency, is at the bottom line. Of course, any business owner knows that profit is what keeps a business running--but there are an awful lot of deep corporate pockets in this country that could share quite a bit before running into any kind of economic trouble whatsoever. I'm no fan of stealing from the rich to give to poor--but I'm not a fan of praising greed for greed's sake, either.

Warthog

07-10-2000, 09:29 PM

Well....with a bunch of money, you could teach about the AIDS desease and slow the spread...

Also with a bunch of money, we could do a million experiments and possibly come up with the cure...

It would take a **** load of money to not simply provide the food, but also teach farming, build houses, etc. There are MANY factors involved. Keep in mind we are talking about the WORLD here. That's a lot of poor people.

Warthog

Dputiger

07-11-2000, 12:10 AM

That UNICEF number is interesting--and completely inapplicable. Not that I'm saying I'm against eliminating world hunger--far from it.

The problem is, there's not an effective way to reach these people. 10 billion might buy the food, but will it build the distribution system necessary to take the food to the people that need it? Will it hire loyal, non-partisan guards to make sure enterprising thieves don't steal the food to sell it on the black market to starving people?

Will it pay off the ministers in places like Nigeria--a country renowed in the past for huge levels of corruption?

Obviously not. Hundreds of years ago when trade was low and farming methods primitive, the problem was not having enough food. Now the problem is getting the food through the natural and man-made barriers that prevent its distribution.