If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Protip: If you are going to spend £10billion on refuelling planes make sure they will work on your fighter jets   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 174
    More: Asinine, Airbus A330, RAF, value for money, fighter aircrafts, Oxfordshire  
•       •       •

23394 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2012 at 2:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-05 01:13:24 PM
So they leak a bit. Big deal! Just squirt some window cleaner on it and wipe it down with a clean rag. Done.
 
2012-04-05 01:44:17 PM
It must have been a mistake in converting the French metric system to the British metric system

/Le oops
 
2012-04-05 01:46:58 PM
Put a new nozzle on, or just grab the pitchforks and storm the palace. Being the Daily Fail, I'm inclined to think they'll espouse the latter.
 
2012-04-05 02:06:39 PM

CitizenTed: So they leak a bit. Big deal! Just squirt some window cleaner on it and wipe it down with a clean rag. Done.


They would but after spening that kind of scratch, they really don't want to have to tip the attendant as well.
 
2012-04-05 02:18:37 PM

PainInTheASP: CitizenTed: So they leak a bit. Big deal! Just squirt some window cleaner on it and wipe it down with a clean rag. Done.

They would but after spening that kind of scratch, they really don't want to have to tip the attendant as well.


i628.photobucket.com

YOU MISSED A SPOT!
 
2012-04-05 02:38:23 PM
This almost made me giggle.
 
2012-04-05 02:52:07 PM
Ohhh baby. Nice 3-way.

i.dailymail.co.uk

Funny thing is.. I'd leak a bit too
 
2012-04-05 02:54:15 PM
10 billion on refuelling planes? that's a lot of fuel.
 
2012-04-05 02:54:47 PM
Lemme guess, someone forgot a decimal when converting from metric specs ?

If it's leaking, it's only one part of the plane, no big deal
 
2012-04-05 02:55:30 PM
Just from a practical standpoint, WTF does a tanker need a row of passenger windows?
 
2012-04-05 02:56:13 PM
What the hell do they know about fuel leaks?
i297.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-05 02:57:02 PM
10 billion for 14 planes. Some defense contractor is laughing all the way to the bank. A KC-130 runs 37 million. Even figuring you have to eat some R&D costs with the new model, someone got screwed.

/although I bet Lockheed is trying to bend us over for at least that much with their air tanker
 
2012-04-05 02:57:43 PM
A leak? Sounds like they need a new nozzle with a better washer. There give me $500 million I fixed the problem.
 
2012-04-05 02:58:30 PM

SanDamiano: Just from a practical standpoint, WTF does a tanker need a row of passenger windows?


Try reading the article...
 
2012-04-05 02:59:33 PM
I like how, some 70 years later, the Lancaster is used a frame of reference.

I find it quite endearing.
 
2012-04-05 03:00:31 PM
symptoms of a bloated bureaucracy
 
2012-04-05 03:00:49 PM
Why are governments around the world going bankrupt? Oh yeah...
 
2012-04-05 03:01:19 PM

BurnShrike: Ohhh baby. Nice 3-way.

i.dailymail.co.uk

Funny thing is.. I'd leak a bit too


How can you look at a wholesome picture of a mother nursing her young and think about sex? You're despicable.
 
2012-04-05 03:02:12 PM
Does this mean they have to update the training simulators too? I JUST got the hang of it.

top-games-review.com
 
2012-04-05 03:03:46 PM

ha-ha-guy: 10 billion for 14 planes. Some defense contractor is laughing all the way to the bank. A KC-130 runs 37 million. Even figuring you have to eat some R&D costs with the new model, someone got screwed.

/although I bet Lockheed is trying to bend us over for at least that much with their air tanker


You mean Lockheed is getting paid for the new tanker Boeing is building?

/No wonder the damn things are so pricey - gotta pay everyone.
 
2012-04-05 03:04:27 PM
FTA: Splurge: The £10bn cost of the Voyagers could have bought eight nuclear submarines.

Oh, and those would be better at refuelling the fighter planes?
 
2012-04-05 03:05:44 PM

Precision Boobery: Does this mean they have to update the training simulators too? I JUST got the hang of it.

[top-games-review.com image 411x360]


That sequence inspired much rage in me.
 
2012-04-05 03:06:25 PM
InB4 someone else points out that their Tornadoes aren't fighters

/Tornado F3s were all retired last year
//all that's left are the ground pounders
 
2012-04-05 03:09:00 PM

ha-ha-guy: 10 billion for 14 planes. Some defense contractor is laughing all the way to the bank. A KC-130 runs 37 million. Even figuring you have to eat some R&D costs with the new model, someone got screwed.


I'm still trying to figure out how the new tanker we just bid out got so damn expensive. $5b for 18 airplanes based on the 767 (a design that's plenty mature- is there really THAT much to do to the damn thing?)? That's $277m per- over double the cost of a friggin' F-22, and that thing is completely purpose built.

Somebody's farking the taxpayer. I'm not saying we don't need a new tanker, I'm saying that there's no damn way a 767 variant aircraft should cost nearly $300 million each.
 
2012-04-05 03:09:04 PM
CitizenTed:
So they leak a bit. Big deal! Just squirt some window cleaner on it and wipe it down with a clean rag. Done.

A refueling tanker is a little different from your mom, even if they weigh about the same.
 
2012-04-05 03:09:44 PM
American planes work on gallons.... no leak


It's that farking metric system again
 
2012-04-05 03:10:19 PM

ImperialHazman: What the hell do they know about fuel leaks?


In the history of aviation there have been five warbirds that have been considered the most beautiful, the most glorious.

That one blows them all away.
 
2012-04-05 03:10:39 PM

akula: I'm saying that there's no damn way a 767 variant aircraft should cost nearly $300 million each.


OK, just checked, a 767-400ER runs about $190m (that's over double what I expected), but still, another $80m or so just to install huge gas tanks and a refueling boom?
 
2012-04-05 03:14:41 PM
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
Well their jets probably didn't have the access codes, forcing them to shoot the nozzles off the refueling hoses, which would, of course, cause a fuel leak.
And a rather awesome explosion when the engines hit the fuel vapor cloud.
 
2012-04-05 03:15:38 PM
Before the article : Please be Airbus Please be Airbus

FTA: "A militarised version of the Airbus A330-200 passenger plane, the Voyager can transport 400 soldiers."


I think they may have just justified Boeing for decades to come....

'Remember when we kept trying to rig the refueling contract so we could win? Well, look at what happened to the United Kingdom...."
 
2012-04-05 03:16:17 PM
Twice the size of a Lancaster bomber?! While I understand that the BBMF is still popular in the UK, is using a World War 2 era bomber the best way to describe the size of the plane?
 
2012-04-05 03:16:22 PM

Dinodork: InB4 someone else points out that their Tornadoes aren't fighters

/Tornado F3s were all retired last year
//all that's left are the ground pounders


The fighters in the picture are Typhoons, not Tornados.
 
2012-04-05 03:16:46 PM

Precision Boobery: Does this mean they have to update the training simulators too? I JUST got the hang of it.

[top-games-review.com image 411x360]




You bastarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd! I knew I should have looked before I spent minutes, MINUTES I SAY, of my life trying to find an image and then hosting it.
 
2012-04-05 03:16:53 PM
Just lie back and think of England's airspace.

Daaaaaaaaaaaaa da da daaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... (new window)
 
2012-04-05 03:20:17 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: It must have been a mistake in converting the French metric system to the British metric system

/Le oops


Why is there even a conversion problem? I would have thought all NATO aircraft are on the same standard. You'd think at some point they're going to have to get fuel from a KC-135.
 
2012-04-05 03:20:36 PM

akula: akula: I'm saying that there's no damn way a 767 variant aircraft should cost nearly $300 million each.

OK, just checked, a 767-400ER runs about $190m (that's over double what I expected), but still, another $80m or so just to install huge gas tanks and a refueling boom?


We were skeptical of the solid gold booms at first, but soon won over after a few drinks courtesy of the supplier.
 
2012-04-05 03:20:54 PM
Hell, how much have we wasted on the useless B-2?
 
2012-04-05 03:21:27 PM

tgregory: Why are governments around the world going bankrupt? Oh yeah...


If they can waste that much on a weapon gimmick, why not at least that much on some moon-shot project (like nuclear fusion power) that could improve everyone's life with cheap, clean energy?
 
2012-04-05 03:21:59 PM
Karmic payback for selling Canada four old diesel subs that have, in the 13 years we've had them, spent less than 2 years total, combined, in action. The rest of the time they've been in dock for repairs.
 
2012-04-05 03:22:33 PM

twiztedjustin: Precision Boobery: Does this mean they have to update the training simulators too? I JUST got the hang of it.

[top-games-review.com image 411x360]



You bastarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd! I knew I should have looked before I spent minutes, MINUTES I SAY, of my life trying to find an image and then hosting it.


At least you don't have to worry about landing... because that game farking cheated and it was impossible!
 
2012-04-05 03:23:41 PM

Detinwolf: akula: akula: I'm saying that there's no damn way a 767 variant aircraft should cost nearly $300 million each.

OK, just checked, a 767-400ER runs about $190m (that's over double what I expected), but still, another $80m or so just to install huge gas tanks and a refueling boom?

We were skeptical of the solid gold booms at first, but soon won over after a few drinks courtesy of the supplier.


For that much, SOMEBODY had better have gotten at least a blow job from some really hot strippers too.
 
2012-04-05 03:24:10 PM

akula: akula: I'm saying that there's no damn way a 767 variant aircraft should cost nearly $300 million each.

OK, just checked, a 767-400ER runs about $190m (that's over double what I expected), but still, another $80m or so just to install huge gas tanks and a refueling boom?


They have to bring everything up to mil-spec (paint it grey and put "M" in front of the model number).

But seriously, there probably is a lot of expensive development work going into avionics upgrades, especially the radio links. There are probably structural mods beyond just sticking in a fuel bladder that have to be designed and implemented. In my experience, though, the real killer is performance and support requirements for a hand-ful of low volume parts. Plus, they have to completely segregate this 767 line from the main 767 line for security reasons.
 
2012-04-05 03:24:47 PM

akula: akula: I'm saying that there's no damn way a 767 variant aircraft should cost nearly $300 million each.

OK, just checked, a 767-400ER runs about $190m (that's over double what I expected), but still, another $80m or so just to install huge gas tanks and a refueling boom?


Desisn the tanks. Recode the FCS, develop the flight models, get the thing fully qualified for use, go through a development test cycle and then an operational test phase.

Develop a logistic and support program to support the aircraft fleet for X dozen years. Procure enough equipment to ensure they are sustained through the planned service life.

Develop a training plan and implement it so that the pilots, the crew, the ground crew, the maintenance crew, and others can support it. Then train the first round of personnel.

10bn for a new aircraft is not much at all.

A 10 lb box of electronics will cost you $20 million to develop and certify if you are lucky.

A refueling aircraft is very different from the aircraft it is based on. You dont just shove tanks in it and hang a hose out the window and call it a day. An entire support infrastructure must be developed.

Not to mention you are casually referring to the ease of designing an aircraft intended to repeatedly come into contact with other aircraft while laden with thousands of pounds of fuel.

Sounds trivial when you spell it out...
 
2012-04-05 03:26:19 PM

Berz: twiztedjustin: Precision Boobery: Does this mean they have to update the training simulators too? I JUST got the hang of it.

[top-games-review.com image 411x360]



You bastarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd! I knew I should have looked before I spent minutes, MINUTES I SAY, of my life trying to find an image and then hosting it.

At least you don't have to worry about landing... because that game farking cheated and it was impossible!


Lies, I used to be able to get to mission 4 on that game. You just have to watch the throttle a lot.
 
Ehh
2012-04-05 03:28:08 PM
akula: I'm not saying we don't need a new tanker, I'm saying that there's no damn way a 767 variant aircraft should cost nearly $300 million each.

Why do you hate America?

/one that works? That'll be 500.
 
2012-04-05 03:28:16 PM

No Such Agency: CitizenTed:
So they leak a bit. Big deal! Just squirt some window cleaner on it and wipe it down with a clean rag. Done.

A refueling tanker is a little different from your mom, even if they weigh about the same.


But his mom does clean up nicely with some window cleaner, and smells nicer (though a little heavy on the ammonia) too. Though you might want to burn that rag afterwards...
 
2012-04-05 03:29:21 PM

Fish in a Barrel: akula: akula: I'm saying that there's no damn way a 767 variant aircraft should cost nearly $300 million each.

OK, just checked, a 767-400ER runs about $190m (that's over double what I expected), but still, another $80m or so just to install huge gas tanks and a refueling boom?

They have to bring everything up to mil-spec (paint it grey and put "M" in front of the model number).

But seriously, there probably is a lot of expensive development work going into avionics upgrades, especially the radio links. There are probably structural mods beyond just sticking in a fuel bladder that have to be designed and implemented. In my experience, though, the real killer is performance and support requirements for a hand-ful of low volume parts. Plus, they have to completely segregate this 767 line from the main 767 line for security reasons.


You sound reasonable and thoughtful. Maybe I need to put you on "ignore"
 
2012-04-05 03:29:59 PM
Maybe they should stop giving fuel to tornadoes. They are deadly enough as it is. Do we really need inferno toranadoes? I think not.
 
2012-04-05 03:32:00 PM

Fish in a Barrel: akula: akula: I'm saying that there's no damn way a 767 variant aircraft should cost nearly $300 million each.

OK, just checked, a 767-400ER runs about $190m (that's over double what I expected), but still, another $80m or so just to install huge gas tanks and a refueling boom?

They have to bring everything up to mil-spec (paint it grey and put "M" in front of the model number).

But seriously, there probably is a lot of expensive development work going into avionics upgrades, especially the radio links. There are probably structural mods beyond just sticking in a fuel bladder that have to be designed and implemented. In my experience, though, the real killer is performance and support requirements for a hand-ful of low volume parts. Plus, they have to completely segregate this 767 line from the main 767 line for security reasons.


Somebody who knows what they're talking about on Fark? GTFO!

Seriously, though, it's mostly sticker shock- it's hard to imagine that such things run the cost up that much, but then again, I'm completely ignorant on the subject.
 
2012-04-05 03:33:05 PM

kim jong-un: . You dont just shove tanks in it and hang a hose out the window and call it a day. An entire support infrastructure must be developed


api.ning.com

That would explain why my line of mid-road refueling cars was a financial disaster.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report