That's OK!But take a closer look following link,It's great to DVD and PSP converter for mac!
DVD Ripper for Mac,
Mac DVD Ripper Suite,
Mac DVD Converter Ultimate Suite,
Mac DVD Copy,
Mac DVD Creator,
Mac DVD to iPod Converter,
Mac DVD to iPhone Converter,
Mac DVD to MP4 Converter,
Mac DVD to Apple TV Converter,
Mac DVD to PSP Converter,
Mac DVD to BlackBerry Converter,
Mac DVD Audio Ripper,
Edit DVD,
Vob Converter for Mac,
VOB to iPod Converter for Mac,
VOB to Apple TV Converter for Mac,
VOB to PSP Converter for Mac,
VOB to MPEG4 Converter for Mac,
VOB to M4V Converter for Mac,
VOB to 3GP Converter for Mac,
VOB to MPG Converter for Mac,
VOB to AVI Converter for Mac

Posted by: angel at October 21, 2008 05:34 AM

I agree with Camp, thei air-force needs balance things up with maintaining, high-tech bombers & low-tech B-52 bomber types. This NGB is suppose to be medium bomber like the old FB-111s.

My feeling is that elements of the government will push for the bomber to be unmanned vehicle (save money & save lives of pilots), and attempt to lower price tag on this thing.

Air Force has this habit of driving up the price tags on their purchases of aircraft. Not wanting to keep things low-tech/but smart designed equipment.

I think their going have hard time getting Congress to allow them to build this NGB and make them regretted not developing F-22's "Bomber" variant FB-22 as cheaper, but stealthy still alternate. R/D is already done with that craft, more you build, cheaper it gets.

Posted by: Colt at September 22, 2008 05:30 PM

Yeah, talk about being naive.

Like the Japanese delivering peace medals to Washington while they were delivering bombs on Pearl Harbor...

Or, terrorist learning to takeoff and fly, and asking for scenic maps of NYC, but not interested in learning to land.

Or, how about a former KGB agent elected as President and he places all his KGB buddies in positions of authority. Then they move to obtain as much oil as possible even claiming arctic oil rights and increase the national defense spending by 25%. Now they are talking about a European pact of nations, because NATO just isn't getting the job done. And they are doing all these things for world peace and the greater good of mankind right?

Ahh... you caught me, I think I am one of those alarmists too. :)

Posted by: Ptsfp at September 19, 2008 09:37 PM

Nomen Knows Not

(Re: Nomen's 17 Sept post)

Kudos, of sorts, to Nomen! It is a rare thing to see such arrogance of position supported by such tenuous logic and questionable world-view within so few sentences on these boards. Normally one would have to visit a political website or the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists/FAS lairs to find such fey (by any common or less so intent of the word EXCEPT ‘visionary’) argumentation in print.

To keep my opening statement a summary of the facts and not an unsupported personal attack, let us examine the critical phrase in Nomen’s post: the one without which his argument collapses. He/She wrote: " in the real world, the only countries we could not defeat without stealth bombers...blah blah blah".

That one phrasing betrays an utter lack of understanding of modern warfare more than all others in Nomen’s post. The options aren't to 'defeat' or 'not defeat', but to be able to defeat easily, handily, and with minimum risk to one's own forces and treasure OR to run the risk of losing forces, treasure and war. This approach to thinking about and working towards our ensuring we have an overmatching capability in war also has the very underappreciated (by amateurs anyway) benefit of discouraging the world's miscreants from precipitous acts that tend to generate beastly unwanted wars in the first place, i.e. deterrence is a long range strike mission as well.

So with that observation of Nomen’s naiveté, we don’t even have to point out his/her other rather weak and disjointed strawman arguments, such as noting his/her tying of “fourth-plus generation fighter air forces and the SAM capabilities” to the attrition of “non-stealth air force units” is irrelevant to the argument. Hopefully someone soon will point out to the dear boy/girl that the issue is that EXISTING air defense (airborne or grounded) systems ALREADY pose a significant threat to all of our non-stealth long-range strike systems in many parts of the world.

I admit, I was also tempted to pile on a bit over Nomen’s extraordinary claim of “we will indeed have strategic warning” but I’m pretty sure most of us already know that if the history of warfare tells us anything, it tells us that we always tend to fight the wars we didn’t see coming and aren’t best prepared for, and that there are always plenty of hope-filled-with-rose-colored glasses types out there. You know the type: more than willing to pretend they don’t see the threat or threats to maintain their happy ignorance, and who decry that anyone even pointing out the possibility that all is not well as ‘alarmist’ or ‘paranoid’ in an attempt to derail any dealing with such threats. How 9/10ish of them.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at September 19, 2008 06:00 PM

Actually the U.S. Air Force is planning on using the B-52 through the year 2040. It is a very good aircraft with an 80% readiness rate and I don't see why it needs replacing anytime in the near future. Heck, why not even build new ones which could fly well beyond 2040. There will always be a need for a low-tech bomb hauler like the Buff. And you can be certain that the terrorist or defenseless enemy soldier in 2070 who just watched his stout-hearted comrades get turned into pudding, will fear it just as much as the VC soldier in Vietnam did way back in 1970.

Posted by: etrout at September 19, 2008 02:26 AM

What Camp wrote.

Something like 80-90% of the American bombload has been dropped from B-52s. Isn't that a platform that urgently needs replacement?

Posted by: Jon Kay at September 19, 2008 12:55 AM

Haha, nyet tavarish Camp. But it would be understandable if Russia and China were to attempt to build competing platforms. I'm not sure if they would have the money though, at least not enough to construct the numbers the U.S. could. These space based weapons platforms would most likely have to operate differently then reconnaissance satellites, and be a little more careful whose airspace they flew over. And "spasiba" for those links, they were interesting:)

And gsak, thank you. You are too kind:)

Posted by: etrout at September 18, 2008 11:10 PM

etrout,

Are you trying to say, you'd like to see Russia put the Polyus-Skif into orbit over your house? :)

"Soviet Space Battle Station Skif and Its Prototype Polus"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1286366/posts
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm

Posted by: Camp at September 18, 2008 06:46 PM

Military genius, etrout... I never thought of that.

Posted by: gsak at September 18, 2008 05:48 PM

Interesting article, that NGB design looks pretty cool but man, where's Billy Mitchell and his foresight when you need him. Has anyone thought about bringing strike capabilities into space? Like right now? This wouldn't require building new platforms from the ground up. Were not the first aircraft carriers modified ships originally built for another purpose?

Why can't we just build larger versions of the Space Shuttle, paint them gunship grey, and fit them with weapons systems? First we could outfit one with cells of MIRV's for a space based nuclear deterrent. For info on MIRVS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV

As technology improves we could outfit another version with a rail gun for a space based bombardment capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gun

And lastly, a third version could incorporate a more powerful version of the laser being designed for the YAL-1 Airborne Laser plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

While using the existing space shuttle design would save a lot of money it would still be expensive, but money could be taken out of other weapons programs such as the NGB and CVNX or wherever. For now more B-2 Spirits and Nimitz class carriers could be built, with research continuing in the area of UCAV's.

Eventually, with advancements in robotics, larger space based bombardment platforms could be built in orbit to incorporate all three weapons systems, but for now I don't see why modifying larger versions of the Space Shuttle wouldn't work. Am I missing something here?

Posted by: etrout at September 18, 2008 04:46 PM

Nukes are off the table unless someone strikes us first. However we need to maintain the option of nuclear retaliation.

Second, a stealth bomber using precision weapons will be more effective in eliminating single threats at a time.

My point is, there will come a time when all of the countries that are hostile to us, will decided to cooperate. So we need to have more than one way to defend ourselves, and destroy the enemy.

China is becoming a bigger threat on a daily basis, even though nobody wants to admit it. They are becoming an economic powerhouse, and building a massive military. Russia is obviously mad at us. Those are the two largest threats to us right now. Now add in all of the third world countries that hate us, and you have a very dangerous world.

This isn't the Cold War where it was us and them. We have enemies all over the world. The potential for a major conflict is lower now. But we will most likely see more conflicts against smaller regimes. With the right weapons we can end those conflicts a lot quicker, and save more American lives.

Posted by: Will at September 18, 2008 10:03 AM

"in the real world, the only countries we could not defeat without stealth bombers are either (1) our allies, or (2) nuclear armed, or both. if we end up in a nuclear war, ICBMs will matter more than the handful dozen stealth bombers we have, anyway. it's possible some country might some day join the need-stealth-bombers category without yet being either an ally or a nuclear power, but that cannot happen overnight; technology like that takes time. conclusion: we will indeed have strategic warning. let's use that."

We are currently & purposely provoking Pakistan to fight us. Pakistan was supposed to be a vital ally of ours,but we are provoking her into war with us. Politics aside about this,this proves that we need to put out more of our most modern weapons.That includes stealth bombers,manned or unmanned. Turkey is tottering over to the dark side & we want to sell them stealth aircraft like the F-35. We are potentially about to face the very F-16s we sold to the Pakistanis,add to that the F-35s we are about to sell to Turkey..........
We are not just facing "stateless cavemen," we are about to face conventionally well armed nations like Pakistan,Russia,& China. These are "LEGITIMATE" threats. I'm not talking about a bunch of "ghosts" whose profiles change with the wind(& causes ALL OF US to be considered terrorist threats),or ridiculous threats of "liquid explosives" that prevents mothers from bringing baby bottles on planes to feed their babies. What next,explosives made from piss or feces,or maybe even "fart bombs?"
We are discouraged from building our armed forces back up to face "legitimate threats," but we are being scared shitless by a man in kidney failure hiding in a cave somewhere in Pakistan now,& the ONLY SOLUTION to combat this [fake] threat is to suspend all of our civil liberties & constitutional freedoms because "racial profiling" is so unfair & that 90 year old wheelchair bound,blind,& hard of hearing grandmother needs to be considered just as much a terrorist threat as an Arab or Muslim. The decription always changes about what these "terrorists" look like.Now they are blond haired & blue eyed,hmmmmm. Tomorrow will they have red hair & green eyes? How about brunette haired & hazel eyes? What total & senseless bullshit!!!! I'm sorry,why again are Russia & China NOT OUR ENEMIES?

Posted by: Roy Smith at September 17, 2008 10:41 PM

Justlookslike the B2.

Posted by: stephen russell at September 17, 2008 09:15 PM

yeah, because fourth-plus generation fighter air forces and the SAM capabilities to shoot down any non-stealth air force units, *AND* hostile intent towards the united states, all just pop out of the ground fully formed on a regular basis. happens every year, right?

try being less paranoid. we have a state department (and an intelligence community, come to that) for a reason too, just like there's a reason for the defense department. they're not mutually exclusive.

in the real world, the only countries we could not defeat without stealth bombers are either (1) our allies, or (2) nuclear armed, or both. if we end up in a nuclear war, ICBMs will matter more than the handful dozen stealth bombers we have, anyway. it's possible some country might some day join the need-stealth-bombers category without yet being either an ally or a nuclear power, but that cannot happen overnight; technology like that takes time. conclusion: we will indeed have strategic warning. let's use that.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio at September 17, 2008 04:57 PM

RE: "i'd tend to think we'd have enough warning to replace however many B-2's we've crashed between now and then"

What a luxury it would be...to be able to entertain such whimsical thoughts.

Unfortunately for those who are actually responsible for ensuring our defense, it is a luxury they can never afford.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at September 17, 2008 04:31 PM

"Roy, why would you want an aircraft to do that? Can be done much less expensively from the ground."

I just KNEW somebody was going to say this(& I'm not psychic,everybody else is just SO PREDICTABLE). In that case,AWACS & JSTARS duties could also be done from the ground. Maybe command & control could be better served if the operators were a lot closer than in the Nevada desert. How much more expensive would a Command & Control Aircraft to control unmanned bombers be?

Posted by: Roy Smith at September 17, 2008 12:58 PM

The flying wing is just cool looking. What is amazing is the Germans made the design in WW2. They had problems stabilizing it, which modern design and computers have solved.

I kinda see the original flying wing like the SR-71 Blackbird. It was a design way ahead of it's time.

Posted by: Ptsfp at September 17, 2008 12:21 PM

no bomber lasts forever. but when will we need to fight an enemy sophisticated enough that the unique capabilities of our existing stealth bombers will actually be needed? given that any enemy with that kind of technological base will also have nuclear weapons, and that we (wisely) work long and hard to avoid possible nuclear confrontations, i'd tend to think we'd have enough warning to replace however many B-2's we've crashed between now and then.

in the meantime, the kinds of targets we're *actually* bombing do not benefit from the extra cost of advanced stealth technology, but *could* benefit from having more (because cheaper) bombers available.

looking at the sorts of bombing missions the Air Force seems to be actually doing these days, it seems to me that most of them are carried out with F-15's / F-18's or B-52's. how do the strengths of this proposed new stealth bomber address the challenges and requirements of the missions those platforms currently perform? could a different design address them better, at no extra cost?

sure, we'll need to have _some_ stealth bombers available, at all times, if only to retain the know-how to build them. but is it really wise to make them the _only_ kinds of bombers we build, given that their particular advantages are most of the time unnecessary in the field?

Posted by: Nomen Nescio at September 17, 2008 11:53 AM

Nomen, you think those "existing bombers" gonna last forever?

Roy, why would you want an aircraft to do that? Can be done much less expensively from the ground.

Posted by: notnomen at September 17, 2008 11:26 AM

Hmmm, looks familiar...

And expensive.

That sound you hear is Jack Northrop doing 10,000 RPM.

Posted by: Grandjester at September 17, 2008 10:13 AM

I was hoping it would look more like the FB-22 design... durn.

The Air Force should develop a high-tech stealth version & a low-tech bomb-hauler (to replace the B-52), that doubles as an aerial tanker... I have a feeling the bomber will be in production before KC-X Tanker program gets out of court. 8)

Posted by: Camp at September 17, 2008 08:46 AM

long range, heavy payload, stealth bomber with an unknown but not obviously limited pricetag --- didn't we already build the B-2? *and* the B-1, come to think of it?

a medium-range, medium-payload, unmanned bomber built for overall economy might be genuinely useful in the kinds of bombing missions being flown today. (and a long-range, heavy-payload, screw-stealth unmanned bomb truck built by slapping some remote control, autonomous-flight electronics into a civilian cargo jet and cutting bomb bay doors in it might be even _better_, actually.) but what can a project like this do that we can't already do with existing bombers, just as expensively?

Posted by: Nomen Nescio at September 17, 2008 08:29 AM

Maybe you could have a manned plane filled with technicians(kind of like AWACS or JSTARS) to control(fly) a fleet of unmanned bomber aircraft. It could be the same shape as the unmanned craft,but it could stay behind the lines to guide the unmanned craft over dangerous territory to drop their bombs. Maybe this could work for if we needed to bomb Russia or China.

Posted by: Roy Smith at September 17, 2008 01:20 AM