Re: trump (the former guy)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2022 8:04 pm
We all know what it means when tfg starts accusing people of being criminals...
Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
http://thefogbow.com/forum/
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/ ... amic-stateKid Rock says Donald Trump sought his advice on North Korea and Islamic State
Musician, who visited White House in 2017 with Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin, said I’m like, ‘Am I supposed to be in on this shit?’
The rapper Kid Rock said Donald Trump once asked him for advice about US policy on Islamic State and North Korea.
In a famous picture from 2017, the rapper was shown in the Oval Office, behind the Resolute Desk, with Trump, the rock musician Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and vice-presidential nominee. Palin said she invited the rightwing rockers “because Jesus was booked”.
“I was there with [Trump] one day when he ended the caliphate,” Kid Rock, 51 and born Robert Ritchie, told Carlson in reference to US efforts against the Islamic State.
“He wanted to put out a tweet … I don’t like to speak out of school. I hope I’m not. But … the tweet was, and I’m paraphrasing, but it’s like, you know, ‘If you ever joined the caliphate, you know, trying to do this, you’re going to be dead.’
“He goes, ‘What do you think?’ [ I said] ‘Awesome. I can’t add any better.’ But then it comes out and it’s … reworded and more political, to look politically correct. And just, ‘be afraid’.”
He also said he and Trump were once “looking at maps. I’m like, you know, like, ‘Am I supposed to be in on this shit?’ Like I make dirty records sometimes. I do.
“‘What do you think we should do about North Korea?’ I’m like, ‘What? I don’t think I’m qualified to answer this.’”
In four years in office, Trump both threatened and met with the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un. No progress was made in ending the US standoff with the nuclear-armed dictator.
Some online critics wondered whether Trump really asked Kid Rock what to do about North Korea.
But after Kid Rock’s White House visit with Nugent and Palin in 2017, Nugent told the New York Times the group discussed “‘health, fitness, food, rock’n’roll, Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley, secure borders, the history of the United States, guns, bullets, bows and arrows, North Korea, Russia and a half-dozen other issues”.
No, honestly we can't do with out those "44 year old planes"* as we have no replacements for them at this time.
It's still a young one compared to the B-52s which had the last B-52H's come off the line in 1961-1963. Something like 64 are still flying and 12 more are available in long-term storage. I heard 2045 was being considered for the final retirement but now they are thinking about bumping that date to later.Frater I*I wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 5:10 pm No, honestly we can't do with out those "44 year old planes"* as we have no replacements for them at this time.
[I'm guessing he's talking about the F-15 which was first introduced 46 years ago, is our all weather interceptor, new ones are still being built because we have yet to get a replacement for it...]
2060 is the plan, they started a program 5 years ago to zero hour the airframes, there is however an aircraft in the pipeline from Lockheed to replace it, the B-21 Raider, expected to enter service by 26-27northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:09 pm
It's still a young one compared to the B-52s which had the last B-52H's come off the line in 1961-1963. Something like 64 are still flying and 12 more are available in long-term storage. I heard 2045 was being considered for the final retirement but now they are thinking about bumping that date to later.
I guess this is what happens when you find a design that works so well. It is hard to find something to replace it. The new-fangled toys brought lots of new stuff but also brought a platform that had no long-term stability (not to mention, I think the B-1 has limitations on what it can carry, due to treaties).
I read not long ago that the military was looking into equipment that was more mission updatable. In other words, they could keep the overall infrastructure of a platform but swap out internal components and software easily for future mission changes, thus allowing upgrades without having to create a whole new platform. I don't know if the USAF has bought into that yet.
Plus, it's easy to maintain a craft in perfect order when you have an unlimited budget. A 44-year-old fighter is not like a 1978 Ford.Gregg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:08 pm The F-15 is also totally bad ass. The fact is, around 50 years ago, the planes got to where they were capable of killing the pilots with the maneuvers they were capable of, so it didn't do much good to make them faster able to turn quicker etc.... An F-15 cannot be flown to its full potential because it would literally kill the pilot. The Air Force tested an interceptor version of the SR-71 (YF-13B) and it just didn't make sense. You can't keep them on patrol because they use too much fuel to be kept up, they take too long to get ready to fly to be left ready on the tarmac (fueling them ahead of time is a problem, they leak so bad on the ground the tanks would empty just sitting there) and trying to fly the kinds of things an interceptor needs to do at Mach 3.2 isn't something you'd call pleasant for the flight crew.
The only advances that made sense after that were stealth and then unmanned aircraft. And for the most part, that's the way we've gone.
I also gather that a lot of the advances have been in things like sensors, weapons systems, countermeasures, and integration with other units (there is some fancy name for it that I am blanking on), things that can (and have been) retrofitted to existing aircraft.
The B-52 is scheduled to continue flying until at least 2060, and it may be continued past that point. Late last year, the USAF awarded a contract to Rolls Royce to re-engine the B-52 fleet with new commercial business jet engines, which will give them another 30 years of life. Bizjet engines tend to go 10,000+ hours between major overhauls, so the expectation is that few engines will need to come off the wing for overhauls in the remaining service life of the plane. The current TF33 engines are much older so have much lower time between overhauls, and the engines in service are relatively fragile so there are lots of unplanned maintenance events.northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:09 pmIt's still a young one compared to the B-52s which had the last B-52H's come off the line in 1961-1963. Something like 64 are still flying and 12 more are available in long-term storage. I heard 2045 was being considered for the final retirement but now they are thinking about bumping that date to later.Frater I*I wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 5:10 pm No, honestly we can't do with out those "44 year old planes"* as we have no replacements for them at this time.
[I'm guessing he's talking about the F-15 which was first introduced 46 years ago, is our all weather interceptor, new ones are still being built because we have yet to get a replacement for it...]
While there's a temptation to believe that the old stuff is better and thus that the new stuff was a waste of money, in this case, the old stuff is merely different, not better. Both the B-1 and B-2 (and in the future, the B-21) are designed to be "penetrating" bombers. That means they can execute missions in enemy territory, entering and exiting undetected. They don't need to have air superiority established via fighters before overflying contested territory ("contested" = where people might actually shoot back at you). In the B-52 heyday, the battle doctrine was that fighters would come in and establish air superiority by shooting down all the other guy's planes. Ground attack aircraft would jam radio communications, shut down surface-to-air missile sites and render radar inoperative. That would then open the skies for waves of high-capacity bombers to come in and pulverize what's left before a ground invasion would hold territory.I guess this is what happens when you find a design that works so well. It is hard to find something to replace it. The new-fangled toys brought lots of new stuff but also brought a platform that had no long-term stability (not to mention, I think the B-1 has limitations on what it can carry, due to treaties).
That's a goal of the F-35 and it's also a key expectation for newer UAV's and all other new aircraft, particularly swarms of coordinating autonomous vehicles. One concept has the F-35 functioning as a network server for lots of unmanned systems, with oceans of computing power on board that take sensor data and process it on the aircraft either for the pilot or for upload to theater or global command and control systems.I read not long ago that the military was looking into equipment that was more mission updatable. In other words, they could keep the overall infrastructure of a platform but swap out internal components and software easily for future mission changes, thus allowing upgrades without having to create a whole new platform. I don't know if the USAF has bought into that yet.
I see a couple of caveats with this though.johnpcapitalist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 11:58 am While there's a temptation to believe that the old stuff is better and thus that the new stuff was a waste of money, in this case, the old stuff is merely different, not better.
One year, I was visiting a family friend who lived in Glendale, California, at a home up in the hills in the north part of town. It was New Year's Day, and we were having brunch. I heard a faint whooshing sound and went outside to look. It was a pair of B-2's flying low-altitude racetracks in formation in a holding pattern prior to doing a flyby down the length of Colorado Boulevard for the start of the Rose Parade in Pasadena, the town next door. I looked it up later and found that the place I was visiting was on the straight line you'd get if you extended Colorado Blvd. west through the hills. It was pretty cool to watch them do a half dozen orbits before the flyby.FiveAcres wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:17 pm We used to live due north of the Air Force Academy, which meant that we were directly under the air show for graduation and home coming. One time, I looked up from where I was standing on our deck and saw this huge black thing above our house that was making no noise. A few minutes of googling and I realized that I had probably just seen a B2 flyover. I was astonished because I didn't realize they flew them in air shows.
They could have bought a 15-second Superbowl ad for thatjohnpcapitalist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:09 pm Some estimates peg the hourly operating cost for a B-2 at around $150,000, so the total mission cost to buzz the Rose Parade was probably $2 million to $2.5 million for two minutes of publicity.