Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(NextGov)   $4.6 million Predator drone downed by rubber cement   (nextgov.com ) divider line
    More: Strange, Predator drone, car repairs, unmanned aircraft  
•       •       •

10351 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2013 at 8:23 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



18 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-20 08:25:10 AM  
Should have used duct tape.
 
2013-02-20 08:35:46 AM  
How does a freaking drone end up costing the same as a main battle tank?
 
2013-02-20 08:36:44 AM  
Yes, this clearly justifies aircraft carriers full of F-22s and F-35s, because obviously the drones aren't totally doing those jobs for a tiny fraction of the cost at no risk.
 
2013-02-20 08:38:47 AM  
Author of that article is a complete farking moron, RTV 162 is hardly "rubber cement used for minor car repairs". It's electronics grade silicone designed specifically for the aerospace industry and applications such as that.
 
2013-02-20 08:43:19 AM  
I hope they sniff out the person responsible and really stick it to him.  There are procedures to adhere to, and all that "red tape" is there for a reason.  A drone needs to stay glued to its target area for days on end, and it is not a krazy idea that things will vibrate loose if not secured properly.  Despite people gumming up the works, these drones need to solder on and keep fighting the good fight, and that only happens with a weld efined approach to operations and maintenance.
 
2013-02-20 08:45:45 AM  
Taliban: "I'm rubber you're rubber glue, your bullets bounce off me and stick to you "

Drone: "What this is I don't even.... Uh oh"

Taliban: "I can't believe that worked!"
 
2013-02-20 08:52:39 AM  
A nickel can hold up a dollar.

But alas a nickel can't keep $4.6 up forever.
 
2013-02-20 09:02:18 AM  
Yep, rubber cement==RTV silicone sealant
 
2013-02-20 09:03:27 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: How does a freaking drone end up costing the same as a main battle tank?


You ever see a flying main battle tank?
 
2013-02-20 09:07:40 AM  
i.imgur.com
/YOU'RE NOT MY SUPERVISOR!
 
2013-02-20 09:11:46 AM  
Mishaps database? I have my reading for the day, and it's already paying off
 
2013-02-20 09:23:46 AM  

ReapTheChaos: Author of that article is a complete farking moron, RTV 162 is hardly "rubber cement used for minor car repairs". It's electronics grade silicone designed specifically for the aerospace industry and applications such as that.


This.

An adequate amount (relative to the weight of the chip) of the right grade of RTV silicone correctly applied would have high adhesion. No amount of vibration would cause it to fail.
Drone mechanic needs to have his pay docked $4.6 mil.

(Ms. K's vibrator has a silicone mounted chip. It has never failed to produce vibrations. So there.)
 
2013-02-20 12:02:32 PM  
By all means, lets start flying these over US airspace where they'll crash for things like that a human pilot might have had a chance at handling.
 
2013-02-20 12:09:40 PM  
What is $138,000 million ?
 
2013-02-20 12:12:41 PM  

MythDragon: Phil Moskowitz: How does a freaking drone end up costing the same as a main battle tank?

You ever see a flying main battle tank?


/A-Teamflyingtank.jpg
 
2013-02-20 12:43:52 PM  

professor_tom: Yes, this clearly justifies aircraft carriers full of F-22s and F-35s, because obviously the drones aren't totally doing those jobs for a tiny fraction of the cost at no risk.


F-22 Raptors are not designed for carrier deployment.
 
2013-02-20 01:23:47 PM  

MikeBoomshadow: professor_tom: Yes, this clearly justifies aircraft carriers full of F-22s and F-35s, because obviously the drones aren't totally doing those jobs for a tiny fraction of the cost at no risk.

F-22 Raptors are not designed for carrier deployment.


Plus he's arguing a point that no one even mentioned yet.
 
2013-02-20 01:34:53 PM  

MikeBoomshadow: professor_tom: Yes, this clearly justifies aircraft carriers full of F-22s and F-35s, because obviously the drones aren't totally doing those jobs for a tiny fraction of the cost at no risk.

F-22 Raptors are not designed for carrier deployment.



Neither are T-65s
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report