the US unbeatable?

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#41

Edit - In reply to Mike M (Bladensburg sneaked a post in there !!!)

Possibly not, but the point some of us have made is that, in the long run, who will own the companies that produce the technology?

The governement wouldn’t let strategic industries be sold to foreign companies?

Have a look at this site (first one I found with Google)

http://www.na.baesystems.com/customerSolutions.cfm

I know we are on your side, but the same thing is happening Worldwide. We nearly sold BAE to the Germans a few years ago IIRC . . . .

Welcome to the age of network centric warfare, where the US certainly leads, but then you have to reatin control of the key bits of the network . . .

I’m not bashing the US here. The UK is probably in an even worse position as we seem to be selling great chunks of our infrastructure (water companies, electricity, education, IT) to companies from overseas.

q. How much does the US spend in China at the moment?
a. A lot. A very lot.

What are they trying to do with the money they are making? Buy US companies (IIRC the third largest US oil company a couple of weeks ago)

Will someone sell his company if offered the right amount of cash, or will he come over all patriotic? I leave that one as a question for the audience. . . . . .[/quote]

#42

I would believe that, but with the renewed grounding of the Shuttle, the US government doesn’t even have a credible heavy-lift vehicle for getting into space at the moment, and the replacement isn’t on the horizon for some time yet. That makes me think they aren’t quite so on the ball as far as space is concerned as they perhaps once were.

When I left the AF in 85 they were shooting lazer beams from
converted KC-135’s, from air to air & from air to ground. Its been over 20 years I wonder how much progress they have made???

Well, they’re shooting lasers beams from converted 747-400F’s instead of KC-135’s… if you call that progress? :wink:

Seriously though - air-to-air lasers are very much just round the corner as an operational weapon system - YAL-1 is a program underway that should eventually be operational (edit: in a few years rather than decades)

I don’t think anyone will ever pass the US in technology.

Depends if the DoD dollars dry up… a distinct possibility if the government continues to run up huge defecits - which let’s face it takes a huge chunk of the credit for the US’ technology edge… a benevolent government who is willing to pay billions for something private industry could never justify. There’s nothing to say that US defence spending will remain as far ahead of that elsewhere, say in Europe, forever. Or even if it does, the war on terror is going to place demands on that funding that will divert away from “hi-tech” projects such as Comanche - which fell victim to more pressing needs than high technology for the sake of it.

#43

Don’t be fooled by the B in BAE! At various times over the past few years - indeed at various times over 2005 - BAE Systems has been majority foreign owned! http://ir.baesystems.com/bae/shareholder_info/foreign/

EDIT: Worse still
http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2003/07/01/168222/‘Foreign’+BAE+loses+corporate+charters.html

[i]‘Foreign’ BAE loses corporate charters
UK broker Air Charter Travel has been forced to cancel a series of corporate shuttle bookings for the rest of this year as a result of BAE Systems’ flight department having its operating licence withdrawn. The manufacturer is likely to be classified as a foreign company in the coming weeks, bringing the private charter joint venture with London Gatwick airport-based Air Charter to a close after seven months.

As part of a wider restructuring, BAE Systems Corporate Air Travel has been chartering out the weekend downtime of its two 66-seat BAE 146 employee shuttles since November (Flight International, 26 November-2 December 2002). The UK Civil Aviation Authority is understood to be on the verge of withdrawing the company’s public transport operating certificate, which can only be issued to companies with a majority of shareholders from the European Union, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, known as the European Economic Area.

The CAA says BAE Systems Corporate Air Travel “holds a valid European Economic Area operating licence”, but that it is in discussion about future validity. From 1 July, the airframer will only be permitted to transport its own personnel, in case its foreign shareholding rises above 50%, says BAE Systems Corporate Air Travel managing director Nobby Clark.

The flight department is looking at several options for future operation, he adds, including outsourcing some or all the aircraft operation to a third party, or continuing as a private operation, which would require providing the CAA with a foreign companies bond to guarantee fees and charges in the case of bankruptcy. A decision on the future structure of the company will be taken by the end of July, Clark says.
[/i]

#44

mike M. wrote:

Who ever will be the number 1 super power will be the one who controls space. We don’t have a clue how advanced the US military is. Most of the weapons we see now are very old and I would bet my next paycheck the US military has something hidden up it’s sleeve.

I don’t think anyone will ever pass the US in technology.

Quote 1,
the Americans have been spending less and less on Space technology for years. The actual budget spent on training a handfull of astronauts and maintaining the aging Shuttles takes up a vast proportion of their budget.

The DoD is looking at how to fund the next tranche of GPS satts!!!

The Europeans on the other hand are putting more capable sattelites up as we speak, in all fields, Comms, weather, mapping, etc. They actually spend more on R&D of the payloads than NASA. Because they have very little overhead costs.

The Shuttle is a failure, in one respect, because it was to be cheaper than wasting rockets like Appolo, this has never been quite realised, and as they grow older they will cost more.

Also the co-operation beteen Europe and Russia means that should Europe really decide to step up the ante, you would find that America was hard pressed to keep up.

They are already beginning to leave America behind in some fields.

Quote 2.
In individual aspects or as a group?

The British have a lot of equipment that is better than American kit. Just look at what you have bought from us Chobham armour for one. Although we could argue all day about which is better Chally 2 or Abrams.

WAH-64 Apache (Longbow) has far superior Engines and Communications and Surveilance equipment than the newest AH-64. Tempered by a heavier ground weight.

Warrior has excelled in Iraq, often hit with multiple RPGs and yet still driving back to base, compare with the Bradley, that even the Yanks considered a bit vulnerable in the early '90s (especially with the massive fuel, ammo and rocket load it carries) when it was brought in.

In terms of Electronics again, Britian is slowly pushing ahead, and that is only the stuff we have now!!! In communications I would say we have an edge in quality, but the Yanks have quantity.

#45

Of course many would have said the same thing 150 years ago about Britain.

#46

Japan? And of course 100 years ago many would have said the same about Britain.

#47

Japan? And of course 100 years ago many would have said the same about Britain.[/quote]

Dont forget you have to have money to fund the research for new technology and development. No money no funny. So as you can see war is more economical nowadays.

#48

Like I said…Who controls space will be the #1 power. As far as grounding the shuttle, well they are just being super cautious, it will come back all they gotta do is redesign the insulation on the fuel tank.
The US knows the other technology that is launched into space and IM sure they are staying ahead of it. I was present during the first 5 landings of the shuttle and the 3rd one was much heavier than the first two, which leads me to believe they are bringing down and studying other countries hardware. Will that keep us ahead…I dont know but it sure helps.
We will always have people bitching and moaning about what the space program costs but it will always be funded.

The question is??? Who will control space :?

#49

the martians will :shock:

#50

Mike m wrote

Like I said…Who controls space will be the #1 power. As far as grounding the shuttle, well they are just being super cautious, it will come back all they gotta do is redesign the insulation on the fuel tank. The US knows the other technology that is launched into space and IM sure they are staying ahead of it. I was present during the first 5 landings of the shuttle and the 3rd one was much heavier than the first two, which leads me to believe they are bringing down and studying other countries hardware. Will that keep us ahead…I dont know but it sure helps.
We will always have people bitching and moaning about what the space program costs but it will always be funded.

Red. A lot more cautious than when they sent Challenger and Columbia up you mean?

Blue. Oh well, if that’s ALL they’ve got to do!!! :? :shock:

Green. And no body else realises this? Anything sensitive would be driven in to the atmosphere, anything else then there is an easier way to study what is up there. People are likely to get upset if America starts steelling sattelites!!! If it is new and cutting edge it will be in use, so to that end, it’s removal is likely to cause uproar.

#51

Yes, at that time they didnt know as much as they do now about the insulation problem, but everyone knows space exploration is VERY HAZARDOUS always has been.

Not sure what you mean by driven into the atmosphere :?:

#52

Well, its just a theory of mine, I cant prove it because I didn’t see what was in the cargo hold, all I know is the wheels went deeper into the lake bed, which to me means it was heavier. Heavier than the two previous empty shuttles I saw. :shock:
I think the problem is trying to prove the US took it. It must have been hit by an asteroid. LOL :lol:

#53

The Shuttle flies way lower than any Satellite!

A typical comms satellite orbit.

http://marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/education/class/paul/orbits2.html

A Shuttle Orbit, low Earth and some 36000 miles away

http://www.cdli.ca/CITE/sts_orbit.htm

Anything thats not low Earth, the Shuttle aint going to reach.

And finally, Id say that instead of being a success the Shuttle has been pretty much a failure.

You have to read down in this tedious link as to reasons why etc:

http://space-shuttle-program.area51.ipupdater.com/

I am not sure when, if at all, it will ever fly again.

#54

Always has been, largely because they’ve never tried to make it properly safe. The inherent dangers aren’t actually all that much worse than many aircraft or submarines in operation today. The high casualties have been caused either by the cold war driving people to do things that just weren’t safe in order to get one over on the opposition, or by simple engineering incompetence. The Challenger disaster I personally regard as a case of corporate manslaughter by NASA - the engineers who designed the boosters told NASA that the shuttle would almost certainly explode if they launched in those conditions, but they did anyway. The Columbia disaster has slightly more complex roots (and the foam has virtually nothing to do with it - they’re all to do with the reentry strategy and the choice of ceramic tiles of all things for thermal protection) but again was an accident waiting to happen.

#55

Who’s to say how high the Shuttle has been…Im sure that is classified / Top secret info. remember what goes up eventually comes down.

I disagree with it being a failure.

#56

Who’s to say how high the Shuttle has been…Im sure that is classified / Top secret info. remember what goes up eventually comes down.

I disagree with it being a failure.[/quote]

I suppose it would be because the booster is only designed for low Earth orbit. Though I may be wrong, physics isnt my speciality.

Failure as in it was supposed to be able to fly every couple of weeks or so and make commercial space flight cheaper. Has it?

#57

The foam punched a hole in the wing, so I would say it had everything to do with it. So do you wanna fix the foam problem or make a tile that can take a foam hit.
I think it would be cheaper to fix the foam problem.

#58

Considering what it does, the space shuttle really has a good safety record. It is certainly the safest manned space vehicle the United States has ever developed. Its record of two failures in 113 missions translates into reliability greater than 98 percent – and management decisions could probably have avoided both of the failures. Considering what the space shuttle has accomplished in the past 22 years opening up a new frontier, it has been a marvelously safe machine. How many died opening up the American West in the 19th century? How many aviation pioneers lost their lives in the 30 years before commercial aviation took off in the 1930s?

113 MISSIONS!!! TWO FAILURES!!! THATS 98%

#59

Considering what it does, the space shuttle really has a good safety record. It is certainly the safest manned space vehicle the United States has ever developed. Its record of two failures in 113 missions translates into reliability greater than 98 percent – and management decisions could probably have avoided both of the failures. Considering what the space shuttle has accomplished in the past 22 years opening up a new frontier, it has been a marvelously safe machine. How many died opening up the American West in the 19th century? How many aviation pioneers lost their lives in the 30 years before commercial aviation took off in the 1930s?

113 MISSIONS!!! TWO FAILURES!!! THATS 98%[/quote]

I dont disagree with what you say, I merely mean its concept was a failure. Which was a cheap re-usable cargo truck which would be constantly flying missions.

#60

Its concept was a failure :?: :?: I dont get that

I bet that most people don’t even realize that there were 113 missions and if we didn’t have the 2 failures, it would probably be double that. I think its a great concept and by all means a success.