Iraq , Afghanistan and now D.C . WTF

[Frank Castle]

Blimps Over Washington: JLENS Brings Football-Field Sized Anti-Missile Aerostats To Spy On, Protect D.C.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/dc-blimps_n_3651676.html

[AZRedhawk44]

The Relicle.

[tokugawa]

Frank Luke, where are you?

[freakazoid]

From the comments.

I'd have laughed myself silly if they had put the sensor dome between its back fins.

 

[charby]

Moffett Field WWII

[Jamisjockey]

Aerostats have been in use over this country for decades.

http://www.yumasun.com/articles/aerostat-69309-ground-site.html

I used to see this thing out my window at work every day back in the '90's. 

[castle key]

Oh the humanity...

[Jamisjockey]

Oh the humanity...

[tokugawa]

http://imgc.artprintimages.com/images/art-print/wilf-hardy-famous-aircraft-and-their-pilots-the-spad-lieutenant-frank-luke_i-G-29-2937-5JZRD00Z.jpg

[Levant]

When all said and done, the Defense Department will be spending up to 700 percent less on the JLENS system than on spy planes, and will ostensibly get better protection. And who knows? They might be able to pitch in some aerial photography for Redskins games.

How do you spend 700 per cent less?  Is Raytheon going to pay us for the privilege of putting them up?

[Hawkmoon]

How do you spend 700 per cent less?  Is Raytheon going to pay us for the privilege of putting them up?

It's the new math. Stop asking embarrassing questions.

[RaspberrySurprise]

How do you spend 700 per cent less?  Is Raytheon going to pay us for the privilege of putting them up?

Simple, if one spy plane costs 700$ and one spy blimp costs 100$ its a 700% saving.

[Regolith]

Simple, if one spy plane costs 700,000$ and one spy blimp costs 100,000$ its a 700% saving.

FTFY

[Hawkmoon]

Simple, if one spy plane costs 700$ and one spy blimp costs 100$ its a 700% saving.

So you took the new math, eh?

[RaspberrySurprise]

So you took the new math, eh?

It said 700% less THAN not 700% less, its a comparison.

FTFY

I was using small numbers for simplicity. If we are going to be realistic you might want to add a zero... or two.

[Hawkmoon]

It said 700% less THAN not 700% less, its a comparison.

Yes, it is a comparison ... and your math doesn't work.

The article said:

When all said and done, the Defense Department will be spending up to 700 percent less on the JLENS system than on spy planes, ...

The way percentage reductions are calculated is the difference between the original number and the new number, divided by the original number, times 100 equals the percentage of change (increase or decrease).

A widget lists for $75. Widgets are on sale for $50. What's the sale price as a percentage of the list price?

(75 - 50)/75 x 100 = %

25/75 x 100 = %

.333 x 100 = 33.3% reduction.

If a spy plane costs X, then (duh) X = 100% of X. Spending 100 percent less would be spending zero. Spending anything above 100 percent less means a reversal of money flow, in other words money coming into the DoD rather than money being expended.

(X - Y)/X x 100 = 700%

(X - Y) x 100 = 700% X

-Y x 100 = 700X -100 X = 600X

Y = -600X

So to get a 700 percent reduction, the new program has to BRING IN  six times what the original program spent out.

[Levant]

Simple, if one spy plane costs 700$ and one spy blimp costs 100$ its a 700% saving.

They said 700 per cent less. 100 per cent less means it cost nothing.

Do we need to talk about your statement that is even more meaningless mathematically?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2