ScottM Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 AP is reporting that Ellsworth stays open, 8-1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 AP is reporting that Ellsworth stays open, 8-1. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I really am not surprised to see Ellsworth stay open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESPNInsider Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Anyone watching this on C Span ? They are going to do GF early today aren't they? I watched for a bit yesterday and they had GF listed before Ellsworth on the list to get to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Watching C-Span and don't like that they went right to Ellsworth, and now are on New Mexico (Cannon), Grand Forks is listed as later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Anyone watching this on C Span ? They are going to do GF early today aren't they? I watched for a bit yesterday and they had GF listed before Ellsworth on the list to get to. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They haven't gotten to Grand Forks yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESPNInsider Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Base can keep tankers until 2011. Any other news? here's the story Is this that big of a deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Is this that big of a deal? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ummmmm, yes it is a huge deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 ummmmm, yes it is a huge deal <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The unmanned vehicle program will take several years to build. New tankers are expected in 2011 or 2012. GFAFB was mentioned as a probable home for the new tankers by high ranking officials in the Air Force, the Department of Defense and the House and Senate. Keeping tankers here for a longer period will ease the transition and probably mean that we don't have a long down period on base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCWaters Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Great news for both communities....something we all should be able to agree on!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 So this will affect GF more than the flood of '97? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Quote from the BRAC hearings: The University of North Dakota School of Aerospace offers a force multiplier. The Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force have stated that UND “offers some unique opportunities to focus on the UAV efforts for the Air Force and other services.” UND Aerospace could become a Center of Excellence in UAV operations. No other base can offer that.Recent defense bill includes provision for UAV center: http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/13446288.htm The bill contains $1 million for UND to create a "center of excellence" to support the unmanned aerial vehicle mission coming to Grand Forks Air Force Base. But more coming? From the School of Engineering & Mines Christmas newsletter: An exciting new development is unmanned aerial systems (UAVS), and UND is planning to become a major player in this arena. As you may know, the GFAFB lost its tanker mission under BRAC, and gained the Air Force UAV mission. This event has triggered a great deal of interest from the aerospace companies, and the School of Engineering and Mines is partnering with CAS and several industrial partners to initiate a UAV Center on campus. UND has much to offer in the UAVS field through the collaboration of the departments of aviation, space studies, atmospheric sciences, computer science, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering. Seems like its time for UND to step up and offer an aerospace/aeronautical engineering major. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/13733137.htm Appears the decision to place UAVs at GFAFB is already paying off: Lockheed Martin Corp., the largest U.S. defense contractor, is providing the University of North Dakota's aerospace school with specialized training and access to an unmanned aerial vehicle, the school says. "We will have an operational UAV available for test flights as early as this spring," Bruce Smith, dean of UND's John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Science, said Friday. Smith said UND also is trying to get a $3.4 million grant from the state's Centers of Excellence Commission for UAV research and development. He said the grant would help create up to 75 jobs in Grand Forks and help develop a curriculum "for anyone who touches a UAV."With the growth of UAV's expected in both the military and civilian fields, it may not be unspeakable to consider the possibility of Grand Forks UAV offices not only for Lockheed Martin or Raytheon, but also for Boeing or Airbus. Smith said defense contractor Raytheon Co. also is interested in working with the university but has not made a commitment. Smith expects increased demand for UAVs over the next decade. He said they can be used for everything from monitoring weather and the nation's border to hauling packages for major shippers. "I predict that within 10 years UAVs will be the vehicle of choice for nonpassenger travel," Smith said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Site selection team begins GFAFB visit Military officials will visit Grand Forks Air Force Base this week as part of an effort to determine where to house the Air Force's new generation of air refueling tankers, which are slated to begin production in 2011.Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, as well as Rep. Earl Pomeroy, have been working extensively to bring new tankers to the base. The Air Force plans to replace its 50-year-old fleet of KC-135 refueling aircraft with a new generation of tankers.Landing some of the new tankers would help lessen the blow of a 2005 decision to shift the focus at the air base from tankers to drone aircraft, known as unmanned aerial vehicles, during the last round of federal base realignment and closure. The new UAV mission will result in the loss of a significant number of airmen at the base. The first of the base's tanker squadrons is scheduled to be deactivated in June. UAVs could start flying out of the base within a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Mild tangent: The KC-X project(KC-135 replacement) currently has two contenders. Boeing has submitted a version of the 767(KC-767) and Northrop Grumman is submitting the KC-30, which uses the Airbus A330 as its base. Apparently, the decision will be made late this year or early next. Also, anyone else want to smack the DoD around for excessive use of the letters X and Y? KC-X, X-Carrier, DD-X(next-gen destroyer concept), X-Craft(test platform for the Littoral Surface Craft) and Stryker(medium fighting vehicle). I'm sure there are several more. What ever happened to the days of naming fighting vehicles after generals, ships after cities and states, helicopters after NA tribes(don't say it) and aircraft after whatever the heck they felt like that day? I'm expecting to see generals and admirals start pimpin' their rides any day now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Weren't "projects" traditionally "X" or "Y" named (the X-22 JSF?). It's only after acceptance and production do they get to name them after people or (ahem) geography (like USS Omaha ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Historically, X and Y had very specific meanings in the military, especially in the Air Force. When used alone, the X referred to cutting-edge experimental aircraft like the Bell X-1 that Yeager took past the sound barrier and the North American X-15, which achieved a speed of over 7,000 mph and altitudes over 100,000 feet. When applied to fighting aircraft, the X has been used to denote experimental designs that would probably not be developed into production aircraft; i.e. the XF-85 Goblin parasite fighter and the XP-79 Flying Ram. Occasionally, an experimental design works well enough to develop it into a production weapon; i.e. the XB-47 Stratojet and the XB-58 Hustler. The X was also sometimes used to denote experimental varients of existing aircraft; i.e. the XB-25G. The Y was used to denote pre-production aircraft. When a contract was announced, and aerospace companies submitted designs, the flying prototypes were given Y designations; i.e. the YB-49 Flying Wing, the YB-52 Stratofortress, the YF-22 Raptor, and the YF-23 Black Widow II. When the final contract was awarded, the Y was dropped and the aircraft either went into production(B-52/F-22) or fell onto the cutting-room floor of history(YB-49/YF-23). Recent compititions have been for the Advanced Tactical Fighter(ATF)(won by the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor) and the Joint Strike Fighter(JSF)(won by the Lockheed Martin F-35A/B/C Lightning II). In recent years, this X/Y naming system has been breaking down. The JSF submissions were given X designations even though they should've gotten YF one's(they were the X-32 and X-35 instead of the YF-32/35). My previous post about slapping around the DoD was meant mainly as a little joke, but there was a grain of truth in it. In a world as complicated as the DoD's, well-established systems of nomenclature should not be thrown out merely because some mid-level official or bureaucrat thinks an X will play well to the media or congressmen. Thus endeth the reading. We apologize for any mind-numbing boredom you may have endured, and we will now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I've always been fond of Battleship X. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.