What is Digg?84 Comments
- ddales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17In Germany, the bases are German property. The Dept. of Defense actually signs a very long term lease and essentially pays rent.
Now back on topic: Refueling in-flight has been around forever. Re-arming in flight has not but how long can the pilots stay up there without a break? Aerial combat is extrememly stressfull and long missions are not good. - b403, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20does that "rearm" look like "ream" to anyone else in their font/fontsize?
- krystianantoni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14i wonder is this natural that your bases have the same rights as embassys?
in my country US wants to build a base and it wants its terrain to be exteritorial and belonging to US.
as to this invention i rather see it as a good one, as the rearm/refule downtime the planes are getting during war can be cut down. - robwistar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@ezra: the big plane can refuel many small planes. i don't know what the actual gas savings are, but if hickeroar is right that may be why.
@right, hick: FTA: The Air Force's patent application reveals political motivations for the plan. It says that some nations are reluctant to provide access to bases for refuelling and rearming. "The nations of Europe, for example, lying closer as they do to areas of turmoil such as the Middle East, are often reluctant to take hard stances against terrorists who lie within an automobile ride from their borders," it reads. - gettophilosophr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14You know, republicans and/or neocons aren't the only Americans who research new military technology or go to war...Dems and/or liberals do it to...
:-P - JethroSquid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"...fighter planes to be rearmed, as well as refuelled, in mid-flight."
Okay, so what about the pilot? Doesn't he/she have to be 'refuelled' ?
I can imagine a big C-17 with a big McDonald's "M" emblazoned on the side. Hungry pilots would line-up at the "fly-thru" where they would be supplied Big Macs via a boom extending from the rear of the C-17!!!
"Ya want fries with that?" - LMAO! - krystianantoni, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13and in Germany its done the proper way.
as to the topic of this post :-) maybe its for unmanned aircrafts. - captainbluebear, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I believe they have hired EA's Battlefield team to use their famed "fly over an airfield and rearm and repair" system.
- Jezski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Or just removing the pilot (even if its just to remotely control it) all together would make much more sense.
- Phosphan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Exchanging the pilot in mid-flight will be the next step :-)
- wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ braingilbreath - From a structural sense you are correct. I did 20 years in the Navy as an Aviation Ordnanceman and know first hand what it takes to put a weapon on an aircraft. It would be far safer and less expensive to take the JATF (Navy version) and train the Air Force pilots to land it on an aircraft carrier for the rearming that it would to develop a mid-air transfer system where thousands of pounds of ARMED weapons are being transferred from one aircraft to another.
If the point of this is to rearm our aircraft where countries have designed us permission to do so... Isn't that the point of having an aircraft carrier? To have sovereign US territory to put anywhere in the world we want? Where we don't need their permission? - braingilbreath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Air Force planes cannot land on aircraft carriers.
- djAnakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i agree. mid-air refueling is extremely dangerous. it's done commonly because the people doing it are extremely well trained and practice constantly.
- leehord, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think they've been playing too much After Burner
- djAnakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Air force planes can't land on carriers. not only are they ill-equipt, they are structurally different than planes that can land on carriers. just look at the different versions of the JSF.
- sitryd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5yeah, it's a good thing that no technology has ever been used for anything that wasn't explicitly stated in the patent application...
- samstafford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4the truth about what? that had nothing to do with in flight rearming, you were mostly trying to spin a certain middle eastern war into favorable light by dredging up the psychotic dictator argument again. the US develops things like this to stay on top of the war tech battle, and as another poster did mention, this is old news that they are simply getting credit for.
- CoAX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Not sure what country you qualify as a "country that not only knows how to make war but how to make peace" but remember that the US was only one of the winning stakeholders in WWII, the USSR being the other big one. Some say the USSR actually won the war.
And I also have a hard time understanding the concept of choosing the enemy you'll lose the war to when going to war... - djAnakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5as a former B-52 weapons loader in the US Air Force [96-00] it is of my opinion that this will not work. there is way, way too much that can go wrong.
And, yes, mid-air refueling is nothing new. They're saying that in the future it may be possible to refuel AND rearm midair... not just refuel.
BTW, is it possible for you guys to have a normal discussion without turning everything into a political debate? - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Demonstrated what? Refueling or rearming? Refueling happens all the time in the US military.
- EzraSchwartz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Doesn't the heavy plane refuling the fighter still have to take off and land? I can't see where that would save fuel, unless it uses much less then the fighter.
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wish they could uninvent that page's obnoxious page-peel Flash ad.
- nastri83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The idea was clearly stolen from Top Gun for NES.
- wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The next thing is boxes you fly into that repair your aircraft. They are dropped by the enemy aircraft you shoot down, then slowly fall to earth....
- birdwatcher3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@arpad
You don't sound like you are free of prejudices about Europeans yourself.
Am European and even though this may puzzle you, I don't hate the US nor its citizens. On the contrary I like quite a few things about them and their way of life. (Not to mention that my country has received financial and military aid many many times.)
For your information, I also have nothing against the German nor the Italian people -my country was invaded and occupied; But Europe has moved on and resolved it's differences. We all share now a common currency and happily beat the ***** out of each other during sport games. But we don't hate each other nor we wish to invade each other.
Because people disagree with you it does not mean they are your enemy (see: France). and you should be more respectful towards the people who helped you out during your war of independence.
Let me assure you that it's the arrogant tone and attitude of messages like yours that make people in general -and not only Europeans- dislike you.
PS
I am Greek. - Hickeroar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Yeah...this is obvious moronic drivel from some closed minded fool.
Taking off uses immense amounts of fuel. If they can refuel and rearm in the air they can save tons of fuel and resources that would be needed to come down to the ground and go back up.
Besides, they've had tons of aircraft refueling in the air for a LONG time. This is just the next logical step in the process. One less reason to use extra fuel to come to the ground. - burningmonk, on 10/12/2007, -17/+20You're from Poland, yes? I'm totally against that base. Poland needs to stop kissing American ass.
- ehensley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Final now Battlefield 2 can add that patch for all the plane and helo whores. Why touch ground at all.
- VorpalK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Firefox/Noscript or the flashblocking applet of your choice are your friend.
Flash is teh debil. - lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2America didn't come in until Germany almost had complete control of Europe. America was supporting the war the entire time through other means though (i.e. funding and equipment). Europe was very close to becoming a giant German nation, and the turning point was when America stepped up. The USSR had some great fights, and really held their own, but they weren't helping anybody, or even making progress. They were just holding on to what they had left (albeit doing a good job of it).
- rbanffy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@right75,
I would suggest that the US need better checks on the executive branch as well as better diplomacy. That would work miracles defending your freedom for a fraction of the cost of bombing your enemies, with the added bonus of having less enemies to fight. - Nitewolfx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Nothing new. We've been doing it in video games for years.
- djAnakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+315 months? Try 10+ years.
- mattyang, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6GOOD!
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I can't see where that would save fuel, unless it uses much less then the fighter."
It's not about saving fuel, it's about getting your planes to their destinations quickly, and keeping them in the air longer, so they can be ready to strike at any moment. Also, some planes, like the SR-71 actually launch with a mostly-empty tank, then refuel mid-air, I believe in part due to the way the body of the plane expands and contracts in flight. - turbopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what about lunch breaks?
- KingZog, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Planes that ream in flight would sure scare those homophobic Islamists.
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is rearming too, meaning a fighter jet gets to stock up on weapons again without needing to land.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder if this new plane would be able to pass through missions by flying up and to the left and right like you could in Top Gun?
- bfdhud, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5In flight refueling is nothing new. KC-135
- rspeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@merreborn
Did you RTFA? It's about the USAF filing a patent for mid-air re-arming.
You're right about the SR-71, the fuel tanks don't seal perfectly when cold and the tanks leak like mad on the ground. This isn't a very common use for mid-air refueling, though.
@all
Personally, I think the biggest reason for this wasn't even mentioned. Armed drones would be able to stay in the air nearly indefinitely. The financial savings would be fairly significant and it would be a considerable tactical advantage during active fighting. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1awesome concept.. sounds dangerous though... since putting missles on a jet is such a delicate process even on the ground!!
- plefno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Midair-rearming sounds like a horrible idea to me. I admit in theory it sounds awesome, but it seems incredibly dangerous and impractical. I kind of doubt that the plane doing the rearming would be able to carry enough ordinance to rearm more than a few planes. Then like the last commenter said, moving ordinance around on the ground is done very cautiously. To try and do that in the air with some kind of automated system sounds unrealistic and unsafe.
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Refueling has been happening for years (decades?) in the U.S. , but rearming fighter jets is a completely different set of challenges, especially with the U.S. fighters carrying such a variety of munitions.
- right75, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Anything that strengthens our military and our military capabilities is a GOOD thing. The last thing we need is to have our military reduced, especially when other nations (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc) are arming up. I enjoy our freedoms, I appreciate the troops who defend that freedom, and I want them to have all the tools necessary at their immediate disposal to defend that freedom and cause us be victorious 100% of the time.
- right75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@rbanffy:
Exactly how much diplomacy is enough? For example, If I remember correctly, didn't we "work" with Saddam Hussein for nearly 15 months before we invaded Iraq? And were we not inforcing the resolutions of the UN, or were those resolutions only for show? If they were only for show, then the UN is a pointless organization (which I think it is anyway), and should be immediately dissolved.
As for "negotiating" with our enemies, you should know that there are people in this world who simply will not negotiate. They are bent on destroying us and our way of life. No amount of diplomacy is going to change that. Their hatred for us and our freedoms runs far deeper than any amount of diplomacy. Why do you think Iran is developing it's nuclear weapons? Why do you think the countries I listed in my initial post are developing those weapons? They want to project power beyond their current capabilities. If they could reach us, they would. They have demonstrated they are willing to attack when they are able to do so. Reaching out to them in "friendship" will most likely result in your hand being bitten off.
Of course diplomacy is always the first step in any negotiations. However, there are times when diplomacy is off the table. Do you really think Al Queda wants to take the route of diplomacy?!
As for the UN and their resolutions, exactly how many of their resolutions have been inforced? And what's the point of their peacekeeping troops? I heard on Tuesday that the UN has had 13,000 troops in Lebanon to keep the peace. Yet Lebanon is loaded with Hezbollah, which Israel is now destroying. In what ways have these troops been effective? I say they have NOT been effective. In fact, I would go so far as to say the UN has been working with the Hezbollah against the Israelis.
Peace comes through defeat of your enemy. And defeat of your enemy comes by overwhelming firepower. And of course, overwhelming firepower comes by having a superior military. - TheGamerBen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I just have one thing to say to those who were talking about world war 2 and the countries that helped win the war. yes the US and the USSR were big helps in winning the war but you forgot to mention Canada and all the other allied countries that helped out as well because if my memory severs me right USA didn't come in till the war was almost over and Canada and USSR were in the war a lot longer.
- DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"That's because you're a selfish leech who's probably never lifted a finger to help anyone in your life. Move to china. I'll help you pack."
djAnakin, how quick are you to judge of a whole person's life and intents from a few phrases on a public forum...
This is exactly the kind of talk terrorists use to indoctrinate people into their militia. "If you don't want to help us fight the evil enemy, to protect our wives and children, you're a selfish leech".
The concept of "defense" is often used in a wrong way to justify war. It's an easy way out to justify gut reactions.
Most everyone would agree that peace is better than war. But attach the words "defense" and "protection" to war and suddenly "war is not such a bad thing" after all.
While many military-types are priding themselves about the number of times they thought about killing someone but restrained themselves from doing so, war is still connected to a very wild primitive emotion that's hard to control.
How is it so hard to see how this can lead to abuses and hate-driven decisions more than any other kind of "business"? Especially in a structure where questioning authority is the last thing you can do, and can be physically threatened if you do so?
Anyway, sorry for giving my little lunatic peace talk in a thread that is aimed at people that like war machines...
People should have the right to talk about peace without being called "selfish leeches". - gosseyn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is another interesting story about using the ionosphere as a giant antenna in the same page.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@CoAX - "Some say the USSR actually won the war."
Who the hell says that? Russians? Ask Japan who won the war. -
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is