Don't steal a car in Holland!

[TLAM Strike]

They will send F-16s after you! :o

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/4189/f16mindef0.jpg

http://www.military.com/news/article/dutch-use-f16s-to-pursue-criminal-suspect.html?comp=700001075741&rank=3

AMSTERDAM - Talk about overkill.
The Dutch air force says two of its F-16 jet fighters tried to help police chase a criminal suspect.

Spokesman Olav Spanjer says the jets were about to leave Volkel airbase on a training mission Thursday evening when they heard local police had requested a military jeep to chase a suspect over soggy terrain.
The pilots volunteered to help search using their infrared cameras.
Spanjer conceded Friday, "It was kind of a long-shot."
The suspect was in a car with stolen license plates that sped away when police tried to pull it over. After an exchange of gunfire, the car crashed into a canal and the man ran away across a field.
In the end, a tip from a suspicious neighbor, and not a high-tech jet, led police to the suspect.
Never knew this was real:
http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/4648/funnypicturespeedlimite.jpg

[magicstix]

All I'm seeing from this story is that the F-16s had no effect on the chase and wasted a bunch of taxpayer money. :O:

[Gargamel]

Actually, since they were on a training mission anyways, it was good practice for AGM operations in locating and tracking a specific target.

[Jimbuna]

Can't we embellish the story a bit and say the F-16 picked up the vehicle on infrared and fired a heat seeker that knocked it into the canal :DL

[soopaman2]

So are you guys in on the f-35 thing with us? If not then grab a few.

F-16 is military surplus these days.:O:

We can sell you a few f-22 Raptors, they cost a fortune but are just so much sexier. Stealthy, superfast, and multi-purpose.

[magicstix]

So are you guys in on the f-35 thing with us? If not then grab a few.

F-16 is military surplus these days.:O:

We can sell you a few f-22 Raptors, they cost a fortune but are just so much sexier. Stealthy, superfast, and multi-purpose.

F-35 is massively overbudget and underperforming. F-22 doesn't work and kills pilots. Go Lockheed... :down:

[Takeda Shingen]

F-35 is massively overbudget and underperforming. F-22 doesn't work and kills pilots. Go Lockheed... :down:

Every military project is overbudget and underperforms. The DoD is a waste factory.

[magicstix]

Every military project is overbudget and underperforms. The DoD is a waste factory.

Thank you for your emotional, unfounded liberal sentiment. Moving on...

[Takeda Shingen]

Thank you for your emotional, unfounded liberal sentiment. Moving on...

If I am wrong, just let me know how. And thank you for your reactionary knee-jerk response.

[Hottentot]

Takeda criticizes military projects and that's enough to conclude that he is a liberal. :doh:

Deep politics man, deep politics.

[magicstix]

Takeda criticizes military projects and that's enough to conclude that he is a liberal. :doh:

Deep politics man, deep politics.

No, but using silly Liberal terms like "military industrial complex" and making wild claims that the US needs another war to keep its "military industrial complex" going are. This silly whiny jab is just another bit of noise in that vein.

There is no question that the defense industry is messed up in how it spends its money, but the simple fact is that *ALL* government and academic programs are the same way. The FAA is actually in even worse shape than defense, and don't get me started on my headaches in working with PhDs in academia who submit half-assed, totally useless book reports around the end of the fiscal year then ask for more funding that they will subsequently waste. Government healthcare programs are denying men treatment for breast cancer simply because the regulations are written in a manner that requires you to be a woman to receive that financial assistance. NASA kills astronauts because they overrule their non-government contractors when they say pure oxygen environments and launching rockets with O-rings at temperatures outside their safety limits are disastrous ideas.

Given its track record and personal experience, I don't trust the government or academia to run anything, including defense, but that's where we are. Among the DoD contractors I've worked with, Lockheed is probably one of the worst offenders, which was the genesis of my original comment regarding the F-22 and F-35.

That said, defense spending and the "evil military industrial complex" has given us most of the advances of mankind in the past 100 years, so I'm inclined to say something is working. I'd say getting the internet alone is worth the past 40 years of defense spending.

[Takeda Shingen]

No, but using silly Liberal terms like "military industrial complex" and making wild claims that the US needs another war to keep its "military industrial complex" going are. This silly whiny jab is just another bit of noise in that vein.

There is no question that the defense industry is messed up in how it spends its money, but the simple fact is that *ALL* government and academic programs are the same way. The FAA is actually in even worse shape than defense, and don't get me started on my headaches in working with PhDs in academia who submit half-assed, totally useless book reports around the end of the fiscal year then ask for more funding that they will subsequently waste. Government healthcare programs are denying men treatment for breast cancer simply because the regulations are written in a manner that requires you to be a woman to receive that financial assistance. NASA kills astronauts because they overrule their non-government contractors when they say pure oxygen environments and launching rockets with O-rings at temperatures outside their safety limits are disastrous ideas.

Given its track record and personal experience, I don't trust the government or academia to run anything, including defense, but that's where we are. Among the DoD contractors I've worked with, Lockheed is probably one of the worst offenders, which was the genesis of my original comment regarding the F-22 and F-35.

That said, defense spending and the "evil military industrial complex" has given us most of the advances of mankind in the past 100 years, so I'm inclined to say something is working. I'd say getting the internet alone is worth the past 40 years of defense spending.

The MIC is a powerful lobby. And if you have not noticed, there is always a scramble to find a new use for troops (usually in the form of foreign-hosted garrisons) every time that the discussion of DoD budget cuts arises. It doesn't take much to see what is going on. To that end, Ron Paul is right: Close the bases, bring the troops home. Sure, there is waste everywhere in goverment. We need to root that out as well, as you, and so many others are so vocal about. However, there cannot be sacred cows here. Advances or not, spending reform must come to the DoD. If we put leaving it alone on the footing that it has done good, we would never cut anything from any department, as each of them perform a valuable service to society.

Talk about cutting spending and you're labeled a reactionary conservative. Say that these cuts should include the DoD and you're suddenly an emotional liberal. That's okay, though. I've been called every name in the political spectrum over the past 11 years on SubSim. Politics is about entertainment nowadays, and I suppose that part of this is putting everybody in a neat little box.

[Randomizer]

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower coined the phrase Military Industrial Complex in his farewell speech to the American people 17 January 1961.

It was in the context of warning the American people about its potential threat to the United States.

Can't get much more liberal than Ike...

[Takeda Shingen]

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower coined the phrase Military Industrial Complex in his farewell speech to the American people 17 January 1961.

Can't get much more liberal than Ike...

I was about to include an edit that said exactly the same thing. Ultra-liberal Dwight David Eisenhower. :haha:

[Herr-Berbunch]

I'd like someone to point out to me any defense contract for any country in the last 50 years that has come in under budget. :hmmm:

[vienna]

That said, defense spending and the "evil military industrial complex" has given us most of the advances of mankind in the past 100 years, so I'm inclined to say something is working. I'd say getting the internet alone is worth the past 40 years of defense spending.


Quite a sweeping statement...

Actually, most of the advances of mankind came from non-military, civilian sources. NASA has contributed more to civilian and military advances than the military alone. So have other private corporations and academic institutions contributed more to what we now enjoy in the form of technology. All that has happened is the military takes the essentially benign technology and "militarizes" it for their own purposes. It is all part of history: the cavemen are always on the lookout for bigger, better rocks...

If you want a prime example of this idea of plowshares turned into swords, check out Alfred Nobel...(the military have yet to find a way to "militarize" his Peace Prize, though...)...

[magicstix]

Quite a sweeping statement...

Actually, most of the advances of mankind came from non-military, civilian sources. NASA has contributed more to civilian and military advances than the military alone. So have other private corporations and academic institutions contributed more to what we now enjoy in the form of technology. All that has happened is the military takes the essentially benign technology and "militarizes" it for their own purposes. It is all part of history: the cavemen are always on the lookout for bigger, better rocks...

If you want a prime example of this idea of plowshares turned into swords, check out Alfred Nobel...(the military have yet to find a way to "militarize" his Peace Prize, though...)...

NASA started out as an arm of the US Air Force. Rocket technology itself is a product of World War II and Nazi Germany. NASA itself was only created due to Cold War tensions, and JFK himself said that we'd have never gone to the moon except as part of Cold War competition. Have we been back since?

The jet engine, space-faring rocket technology, the Hubble space telescope, the computer, the internet, and nuclear power are just some of the 20th century technologies that were *directly* created by defense/war spending or benefited heavily from it (in the case of HST). To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and gravely lacking in the facts.

Even our misguided endeavor in Iraq has resulted in a massive increase in spending in the medical fields to restore what war has taken away, namely to restore lost limbs and fix disfiguring injuries. Do you think these low-profit, limited demographic fields would be getting any funding otherwise if we didn't have wounded warriors that needed to be put back together?

If you don't like the fact that defense spending, and war in general, advances humanity as a species, perhaps you should spend your efforts trying to change humanity instead of pretending that it's not the truth; however I know it's far easier to ignore the facts rather than face them and try to change something that hasn't changed in the past 100,000 years.

[Takeda Shingen]

I'd like someone to point out to me any defense contract for any country in the last 50 years that has come in under budget. :hmmm:

A large part of my point. One thing that I agree with Obama about is the 'blank check' statement regarding defense contractors. As each new generation of weapons, vehicles, et al comes out, the cost rises. This means that we can, generally, afford fewer of each sucessive generation. While it is a great problem on it's own, and one that the DoD struggles to correct (albeit with limited success), it is greatly exacerbated by the fact that the cost of the contract will go over by an enormous amount. The joke that a lot of DoD employees use is that in 50 years we will be able to afford one plane. The Air Force can use it on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the Navy on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays and the USMC gets it on Sunday.

The bottom line is that there has to be some fundamental change in how defense contracts are handled, or we're going to continue to be flat broke and with nothing to show for it. Glowing over past accomplishments and contributions, or attempting to sweep change under the rug in dismissing it as silly gets us and our armed forces nowhere. This is not a problem that is going to go away.

[Platapus]

I'd like someone to point out to me any defense contract for any country in the last 50 years that has come in under budget. :hmmm:

New fueling facility at Laughlin AFB came in under the $4.4 million budget in 2008
www.afcee.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070725-114.pdf

Chiropractic Demonstration Project 2001

http://www.aliron.com/news_pilotstudy.html


Rebuilding the Pentagon after the 911 attack

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43760

I gave you three and it only took about 5 minutes research. What do I get for a prize? :D And that's just DoD. I did not even bother checking the other parts of the government.

Yes, the government has a lot of waste. Many many (add as many "manys" as you like) government programs end up going over budget (mostly due to legislative and regulation requirements). But to claim that every single government program is over budget is not fair nor accurate.

The problem is that the media seldom reports on programs that are ahead of schedule or below budget. Their customers want to hear the bad news. That's what sells advertising.


Oops, just found out another one

EA-18G Growler project delivered on time, under budget


http://www.gizmag.com/go/8090/


Arg, this is just too easy

NNSA Roof Project Completed Two Years Early and 80 Percent Under Budget

http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/04.09.09

There is a non-DoD project.

[Platapus]

NASA started out as an arm of the US Air Force.

You sure about that?

Public Law 85-568 entitled The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 seems to indicate that NASA consisted of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Langley Aeronautical, Ames Aeronautical, and Lewis Flight Propulsion laboratories.


One of the early criticisms of NASA was that it duplicated what the Army and Air Force were doing.

[TLAM Strike]

NASA started out as an arm of the US Air Force.
Your thinking of the US Army Ballistic Missile Agency at Redstone. In 1958 The ABMA's scientists (Von Braun etc) were transferred to NASA and half of Redstone became Marshall Space Flight Center. ABMA became (along with its parent organization) US Army Missile Command.

[magicstix]

Your thinking of the US Army Ballistic Missile Agency at Redstone. In 1958 The ABMA's scientists (Von Braun etc) were transferred to NASA and half of Redstone became Marshall Space Flight Center. ABMA became (along with its parent organization) US Army Missile Command.

Actually NASA's direct predecessor was NACA, which was created out of wartime necessity in World War I. :D

Parsing the meaning of "is" aside, the point still stands that NASA would've never gone to the moon if we weren't in a Cold War with godless commies.

[Randomizer]

NACA was created in March 1915 more than 2-years before America entered WW1 so it was hardly a "wartime necessity".

[magicstix]

NACA was created in March 1915 more than 2-years before America entered WW1 so it was hardly a "wartime necessity".

"NACA began as an emergency measure during World War I to promote industry/academic/government coordination on war-related projects. It was modeled on similar national agencies found in Europe. Such agencies were the French “L’Etablissement Central de l’Aérostation Militaire” in Meudon (now Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales), the German “Aerodynamical Laboratory of the University of Göttingen” and the Russian “Aerodynamic Institute of Koutchino”. However, the most influential agency upon which the NACA was based was the British “Advisory Committee for Aeronautics”."


The US was gearing up for war long before it ever entered WWI. It's called planning, and we do it all the time, much like we are now with Iran. Would you claim any new weapon we use against them that's being developed now had no military necessity or wartime intent?

[Randomizer]

Try actually reading the article rather than cherry picking bits that suit:

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a U.S. federal agency founded on March 3, 1915 to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958 the agency was dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NACA was pronounced as individual letters, rather than as an acronym.[1]

If you do not trust Wikipedia, see page 9 of the Legislative Origins of NASA here:

http://history.nasa.gov/40thann/legorgns.pdf

Far from gearing up for war US industry was getting rich selling arms to the Allies while procurement for the US military stalled. For example, only two battleships were authorized in the 1915 budget compared to three each in 1914 and 1916.

Wilson would shortly start campaigning for his second term running on the slogan "He kept us out of war!" so the belief in big defence spending during 1915 is illusory.

[magicstix]

Try actually reading the article rather than cherry picking bits that suit:



If you do not trust Wikipedia, see page 9 of the Legislative Origins of NASA here:

http://history.nasa.gov/40thann/legorgns.pdf

Far from gearing up for war US industry was getting rich selling arms to the Allies while procurement for the US military stalled. For example, only two battleships were authorized in the 1915 budget compared to three each in 1914 and 1916.

Wilson would shortly start campaigning for his second term running on the slogan "He kept us out of war!" so the belief in big defence spending during 1915 is illusory.

It seems you're the one cherry picking by posting an irrelevant tidbit about NACA, and ignoring the simple fact that it was created to promote cooperation on war related projects.

[Randomizer]

Except of course that the USA was not at war, was not preparing for war and would not enter the war for 25-months after NACA was created. The Wikipedia article makes a broad statement that it completely fails to substantiate or follow up on. In more than two-years after the founding of NACA, the Aviation Section of the United States Army Signal Corp did not acquire a single warplane that would have been serviceable in European combat and as an arm of service was probably inferior to the Army Air Force of Brazil, which had seen combat service in the Contestado War starting in 1912. In military operations against Pancho Villa in 1916, the Aviation Section unit that deployed with Pershing's force was essentially useless.

When war finally came NACA-free French and British designs were acquired in great numbers and the only indigenous design to see significant service in the Great War was the Curtiss JN-2 trainer which pre-dated the founding of NACA.

If NACA was initially engaged in war related projects, there's precious little evidence outside of one un-referenced and unsubstantiated Wikipedia statement to prove it. Any details on results of these mythological war related projects?

Post-war NACA would do great things but primarily in civil aviation, the NACA Cowl, civil aviation regulation and crash investigation, radio-navigation, theoretical and practical aerodynamic research and wind-tunnel experimental standards and data interpretation.