Navy Drone Crash in Maryland
- Thread starter SeanD
- Start date
gne in prog
Well-Known Member
Rip?
Minuteman
Moⅾerator
Maybe for the bird(s) it probably hit.
Edit, HOLY HELL! "Unit cost US$104 million (flyaway cost for FY2012)"
gne in prog
Well-Known Member
Matt13C
Well-Known Member
Maybe for the bird(s) it probably hit.
Edit, HOLY HELL! "Unit cost US$104 million (flyaway cost for FY2012)"
I thought these things were supposed to be cheap? Maybe they should develop a "clean" version for training since they aren't tracking terrorists over here. Then maybe we'd only be out 52 million.
moxiepilot
Well-Known Member
in other news, usajobs posted a Pilot I position UAV out of patuxent....
(Kidding they always have it listed.)
(Kidding they always have it listed.)
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
"Dude, that sucks."
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
Sum'bitch got in my way
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth...
ScorpionStinger
Well-Known Member
Wow!!!! REAL pilots everywhere should me mad, outraged, and yell "The drones turrk errr jurb!"
ScorpionStinger
Well-Known Member
Maybe for the bird(s) it probably hit.
Edit, HOLY HELL! "Unit cost US$104 million (flyaway cost for FY2012)"
Do you all know how much each F/A-18 Super Hornet Cost? B1B, F-117, B-2, F-22? $104 million is not bad.
Compare the cost of an RQ-4 with a $38-$50 million dollar P-3c Orion (with 2 Pilot's, 1-2 Navigators, 1-2 FE (Flight Engineer, and 3-6 AW's (Aviation Warfare Specialist /Intel Personnel).... not to mention ground personnel needed for maintenance, crew rest, aircraft limitations. RQ-4 is much more beneficial.
RQ-4 Global Hawk/ or BAMS= Enhanced capabilities.
I was an Intern (paid intern) with Northrop Grumman (Subcontract Management) a few years ago for about a year. I know a little about the BAMS program. Before that I was stationed in Patuxent Rive MD, with a test squadron. Before that P-3 Squadron. All I can say is
what these aircraft's are capable of.Simply amazing what these drones can do! And even more amazing are the more advanced ones like X-47B UCAS lined up completing testing and waiting for LRIP. The "Military Industrial Complex" is truly alive an well. They are part of the engines keeping this great nation as #1 in the world! They provide billions in economic benefits to families and communities (thanks Uncle Sam). Hate it or love it, a strong military= a strong economy= a strong America. GO NAVY!
My fear is that Real Pilots will become obsolete in 30-40 years due to the American people becoming comfortable with the idea of unmanned commercial flights. I know BOEING, AIRBUS, EMBRAER, BOMBARDIER, NORTHROP GRUMMAN, LOCKHEED MARTIN, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES, and others; can make it happen.
$104 million for an advanced UAV's is the wave of the future. It's like 10 years ago when LCD T.V's cost like $3,000. Today they cost like $550.00 now since LED's & 3D T.V's are out and more advanced.
Shiner
El Capitan
Love it or hate it, deficit spending = inflation = declining value of the dollar and purchasing power. Thanks Uncle Sam!
ppragman
No pasa nada.
How can I dislike a post here? A strong Military has absolutely no correlation to a strong economy, and America could be stronger regardless of out military might. While I think that the US Navy's supreme domination of the oceans of the world, combined with our nation's almost fanatical control of air and space globally is an incredibly good thing for America (and generally speaking the western world), I'm highly wary of any sort of business that makes killing profitable. While I like my trade-goods to have an easy way of passage, and I like being able to know that Uncle Sam has my back if I get picked up by roving Indonesian Militants on a pleasure cruise in Maldives, I damn well don't care for an industry that has made it it's ambition to use the conflict in the sandbox as an ultra-corrupt test-bed for the most expensive weapons systems that money can buy. Be advised, if there wasn't a war (or whatever the hell we're calling this sort of thing) then we wouldn't have such advanced drone technology, we wouldn't have things like "kill lists" and we wouldn't have such huge deficit spending. I'd prefer that the country I love wasn't made great by our use overwhelming of military superiority but rather by our restraint and hesitance to use violence except in the most grievous of circumstances. If you truly believe that a strong military = a strong economy = a strong America, then I highly suggest you do some soul searching, that's not the universe I really want to live in.
FloridaLarry
Well-Known Member
A very well-equipped military does equal a more robust economy. Well-paid military-industrial workers buy things.
Plus, throw enough money at a task, and there are corollary benefits. Coatings technology benefited from NASA spending, and I'm grateful every time I walk into Sherwin-Williams. Vietnam war led to trauma treatment improvements; middle-eastern conflict(s) are creating new knowledge about traumatic brain injuries, and another round of computer-driven prosthetics.
This kind of spending isn't well-balanced, though. A strong America requires balanced spending and a balanced budget.
Deficit spending reveals a weak congress willing to grab short-term fixes and leave the bill for our children (and their children...).
Plus, throw enough money at a task, and there are corollary benefits. Coatings technology benefited from NASA spending, and I'm grateful every time I walk into Sherwin-Williams. Vietnam war led to trauma treatment improvements; middle-eastern conflict(s) are creating new knowledge about traumatic brain injuries, and another round of computer-driven prosthetics.
This kind of spending isn't well-balanced, though. A strong America requires balanced spending and a balanced budget.
Deficit spending reveals a weak congress willing to grab short-term fixes and leave the bill for our children (and their children...).
Zondaracer
Well-Known Member
You make a point, up to a point. The RQ-4 still has a crew, still has a flight crew, still requires ground personnel for maintenance, still requires intel personnel, still requires all the infrastructure and personnel of the DCGS, etc. etc...
Look at the USAF... they are giving up on the Global Chicken Block 30s because the U2 is actually more cost effective.
Remotely Piloted ISR aircraft definitely have their benefit, but they are only one part of the entire equation.
Boskru
Well-Known Member
I am a huge opponent of UAVs. Yes, it is nice to have something like that being able to stay aloft for such long durations when conducting ISR type missions. BUT...working in Afghanistan has shown me just how dangerous they are to other aircraft in their vicinity AND to the safety of airport operations. I'd say that at least 1-2 times a month there is a predator or reaper who crashes and FODs out the runway. Also, when they loose signal they fly to a predetermined orbit point irregardless of who or what is between themselves and that point. The also cannot hold their altitude! The minimum separation altitude from a UAV is twice the distance required for a manned asset. So don't tell me they are safe and don't risk human lives!
Seggy
Well-Known Member
So Cruise and I were at an event in the fall when a Colonel high up in the USAF UAV Program gave the group a high level briefing about UAVs and integration into the NAS. He was quite unimpressive in his presentation and it's clear the higher ups in the military are behind the power curve with these.
I'm glad the UAVs have found a role in war that reduce the risk and casualties to American Forces, but it's concerning the implementation of them over here in US with the airspace many of us use daily.
I'm glad the UAVs have found a role in war that reduce the risk and casualties to American Forces, but it's concerning the implementation of them over here in US with the airspace many of us use daily.
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Hornet ~ 30 mil, SH ~ 50 mil. Maybe not the best comparison. At least you didn't mention the F-16.....that's like $500 at your local Wally World........yeah mhcasey, I said it
Rocketman99
Frozen Guppy Manipulator
FYI: Colonel high up in the program = doesn't actually know much about the program or how it really works generally, but has some pretty PPT slides made by his aide/exec.
Not saying your asessment is necessarily incorrect, just pointing that out.
ScorpionStinger
Well-Known Member
Hornet ~ 30 mil, SH ~ 50 mil. Maybe not the best comparison. At least you didn't mention the F-16.....that's like $500 at your local Wally World........yeah mhcasey, I said it
lol at Wally World.But the SUPER HORNET (F/A-18E, F/A-18F, EA-18G) cost well over $50 million each. Yes under $70 million a piece. But multiply the cost by the hundreds of aircraft's needed. The aircraft's on ordered and/or in production, or that have been produced. Not to many UAV's are flying or needed.
You don't need as many UAV's. You don't need as many manned pilots. You don't need as many maintenance time (man hour, labor hours, parts, phase maintenance). Because they stay in the air longer, fly further, can fly over a target/threat/station for hours on end with un-comparable fuel economy.
For $104 million!? The prospectus and capabilities of our nations UAV program for "national defense" is invaluable to those who weld it's power.
Throughout history, mankind has always fought wars. War is certain. Being the leader of the free world is not easy; tough decisions have to be made.
Great countries have great military. Military capabilities have helped advance the technology this country and it's people enjoy. Apple Computer enjoy. Nearly every industry in this country enjoy. Including the FMS, GPS, and the
NEXTGEN technology that Mr. Doug Taylor and other airline, corporate, charter, and freight pilots have/will been enjoying.In other words.... Don't hate the toilet paper you need/use to wipe your ass.
