<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_05_1651208</id>
	<title>US Air Force Confirms New Stealth Aircraft</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260033780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:DesScorp@@@Gmail...com" rel="nofollow">DesScorp</a> writes <i>"Aviation Week reports that the USAF has <a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&amp;plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&amp;newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&amp;plckPostId=Blog\%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post\%3A649e3cf4-8c07-4739-82cf-322c6c56ccd5&amp;plckScript=blogScript&amp;plckElementId=blogDest">confirmed the existence of a new, formerly secret stealth aircraft</a>, designated RQ-170 Sentinel, developed at Lockheed's legendary Skunk Works. Rumors of a secret new jet have been flying since 2007, with longtime aviation journalist Bill Sweetman dubbing the possible aircraft '<a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&amp;plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&amp;newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&amp;plckPostId=Blog\%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post\%3A3a3730f4-c5f9-475c-be42-1fdc18846c1b&amp;plck">The Beast of Kandahar</a>' because of the urban legend-like reports from Afghanistan. The aircraft is a UAV, a pilot-less drone that appears to have some kind of reconnaissance-only mission for the time being. It's a tailless flying wing that resembles a fighter-sized B-2 bomber."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DesScorp writes " Aviation Week reports that the USAF has confirmed the existence of a new , formerly secret stealth aircraft , designated RQ-170 Sentinel , developed at Lockheed 's legendary Skunk Works .
Rumors of a secret new jet have been flying since 2007 , with longtime aviation journalist Bill Sweetman dubbing the possible aircraft 'The Beast of Kandahar ' because of the urban legend-like reports from Afghanistan .
The aircraft is a UAV , a pilot-less drone that appears to have some kind of reconnaissance-only mission for the time being .
It 's a tailless flying wing that resembles a fighter-sized B-2 bomber .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DesScorp writes "Aviation Week reports that the USAF has confirmed the existence of a new, formerly secret stealth aircraft, designated RQ-170 Sentinel, developed at Lockheed's legendary Skunk Works.
Rumors of a secret new jet have been flying since 2007, with longtime aviation journalist Bill Sweetman dubbing the possible aircraft 'The Beast of Kandahar' because of the urban legend-like reports from Afghanistan.
The aircraft is a UAV, a pilot-less drone that appears to have some kind of reconnaissance-only mission for the time being.
It's a tailless flying wing that resembles a fighter-sized B-2 bomber.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30341006</id>
	<title>Great, just what we need</title>
	<author>ismism</author>
	<datestamp>1260033120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forget health care, forget humanitarian aid, just kill more people. Problem solved. Stupid friggin yanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget health care , forget humanitarian aid , just kill more people .
Problem solved .
Stupid friggin yanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget health care, forget humanitarian aid, just kill more people.
Problem solved.
Stupid friggin yanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336448</id>
	<title>One thing  it can never achieve.</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1260039000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking as cool as an SR-71.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking as cool as an SR-71 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking as cool as an SR-71.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</id>
	<title>Old news to me</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1260038340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This craft is also capable of bombing missions, according to the Military Channel's own documentaries on experimental craft.  It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts.<br>The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings, and can even do so in the dark. (a milestone feat in itself, due many factors)<br>It's also capable of 24+ hour flight, which is awesome for scouting missions waiting for a mobile target, and is capable of mid-air refueling.  (this is a living pilot no-no, and potentially keeps the craft up as long as it needs to be).</p><p>Eventually, this will be flying more than our own pilots will be, due to the fact that pilots cannot be mass-produced.  Eventually, we WILL be putting arms on them, even if only because there might not be a good enough alternative.</p><p>Also, rumors about similar tanks are in the works...  that are so overengineered that they tried to break it and couldn't (experimental model).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This craft is also capable of bombing missions , according to the Military Channel 's own documentaries on experimental craft .
It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts.The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings , and can even do so in the dark .
( a milestone feat in itself , due many factors ) It 's also capable of 24 + hour flight , which is awesome for scouting missions waiting for a mobile target , and is capable of mid-air refueling .
( this is a living pilot no-no , and potentially keeps the craft up as long as it needs to be ) .Eventually , this will be flying more than our own pilots will be , due to the fact that pilots can not be mass-produced .
Eventually , we WILL be putting arms on them , even if only because there might not be a good enough alternative.Also , rumors about similar tanks are in the works... that are so overengineered that they tried to break it and could n't ( experimental model ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This craft is also capable of bombing missions, according to the Military Channel's own documentaries on experimental craft.
It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts.The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings, and can even do so in the dark.
(a milestone feat in itself, due many factors)It's also capable of 24+ hour flight, which is awesome for scouting missions waiting for a mobile target, and is capable of mid-air refueling.
(this is a living pilot no-no, and potentially keeps the craft up as long as it needs to be).Eventually, this will be flying more than our own pilots will be, due to the fact that pilots cannot be mass-produced.
Eventually, we WILL be putting arms on them, even if only because there might not be a good enough alternative.Also, rumors about similar tanks are in the works...  that are so overengineered that they tried to break it and couldn't (experimental model).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30341588</id>
	<title>Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban??</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1260042420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why deploy an advanced and experimental <i>stealth</i> aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that <i>doesn't have radar</i> (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)?</p> </div><p>Although there are inevitably political implications with any military deployment (what will Pakistan think about it? etc.), a very good reason for deploying a new weapon system in the only current active combat theater where the U.S. is engaged is simply to gain real operational experience with it. It is a big step beyond even the most carefully and thoroughly planned training and test program to operate it in a remote combat zone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that does n't have radar ( nor any capability to threaten aircraft ) ?
Although there are inevitably political implications with any military deployment ( what will Pakistan think about it ?
etc. ) , a very good reason for deploying a new weapon system in the only current active combat theater where the U.S. is engaged is simply to gain real operational experience with it .
It is a big step beyond even the most carefully and thoroughly planned training and test program to operate it in a remote combat zone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that doesn't have radar (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)?
Although there are inevitably political implications with any military deployment (what will Pakistan think about it?
etc.), a very good reason for deploying a new weapon system in the only current active combat theater where the U.S. is engaged is simply to gain real operational experience with it.
It is a big step beyond even the most carefully and thoroughly planned training and test program to operate it in a remote combat zone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337500</id>
	<title>The US is not so much worried about Pakistan</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1260045660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US is more worried about who might control Pakistan tomorrow. The country is in civil war and the government troops are not nearly as in control as they like to claim. And Pakistan got nukes. If its army bases can be attacked, then why not its nuclear facilities? If that happens, well the shit has hit the fan. The US would have no choice to intervene and do it very quickly before India does, nuclear style. And if the US intervenes it would not have time to ask the remaining pakistan goverment for fly-over permission and such.
<p>The current conflict is a lot more dangerous then a lot of people in the west presume. They see a couple of towelheads shooting an AK-47 in the air or guarding someone with an RPG (really, what are you going to do Einstein, shoot your prisoner with an explosive grenade from 2 meters away?) and think "what danger could they be". Not much. Except in very large numbers to a country where the ordinary soldier is not all that motivated in the first place. And that is what Pakistan faces and the price is a nuclear arsenal that very few people in the world would tolerate even the risk of the Taliban getting their hands on it.
</p><p>This ain't a message against the goverment of Pakistan, it is preperation for what goverment there might be in control tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is more worried about who might control Pakistan tomorrow .
The country is in civil war and the government troops are not nearly as in control as they like to claim .
And Pakistan got nukes .
If its army bases can be attacked , then why not its nuclear facilities ?
If that happens , well the shit has hit the fan .
The US would have no choice to intervene and do it very quickly before India does , nuclear style .
And if the US intervenes it would not have time to ask the remaining pakistan goverment for fly-over permission and such .
The current conflict is a lot more dangerous then a lot of people in the west presume .
They see a couple of towelheads shooting an AK-47 in the air or guarding someone with an RPG ( really , what are you going to do Einstein , shoot your prisoner with an explosive grenade from 2 meters away ?
) and think " what danger could they be " .
Not much .
Except in very large numbers to a country where the ordinary soldier is not all that motivated in the first place .
And that is what Pakistan faces and the price is a nuclear arsenal that very few people in the world would tolerate even the risk of the Taliban getting their hands on it .
This ai n't a message against the goverment of Pakistan , it is preperation for what goverment there might be in control tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is more worried about who might control Pakistan tomorrow.
The country is in civil war and the government troops are not nearly as in control as they like to claim.
And Pakistan got nukes.
If its army bases can be attacked, then why not its nuclear facilities?
If that happens, well the shit has hit the fan.
The US would have no choice to intervene and do it very quickly before India does, nuclear style.
And if the US intervenes it would not have time to ask the remaining pakistan goverment for fly-over permission and such.
The current conflict is a lot more dangerous then a lot of people in the west presume.
They see a couple of towelheads shooting an AK-47 in the air or guarding someone with an RPG (really, what are you going to do Einstein, shoot your prisoner with an explosive grenade from 2 meters away?
) and think "what danger could they be".
Not much.
Except in very large numbers to a country where the ordinary soldier is not all that motivated in the first place.
And that is what Pakistan faces and the price is a nuclear arsenal that very few people in the world would tolerate even the risk of the Taliban getting their hands on it.
This ain't a message against the goverment of Pakistan, it is preperation for what goverment there might be in control tomorrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336550</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>and is capable of mid-air refueling. (this is a living pilot no-no</i> <br> <br>Huh? We've been doing mid-air refuel for decades.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and is capable of mid-air refueling .
( this is a living pilot no-no Huh ?
We 've been doing mid-air refuel for decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and is capable of mid-air refueling.
(this is a living pilot no-no  Huh?
We've been doing mid-air refuel for decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337090</id>
	<title>never seen this before...</title>
	<author>the3stars</author>
	<datestamp>1260042780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;um=1&amp;sa=1&amp;q=RQ-170+Sentinel&amp;btnG=Search&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10&amp;start=0" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;um=1&amp;sa=1&amp;q=RQ-170+Sentinel&amp;btnG=Search&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10&amp;start=0</a> [google.com]


wtf.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //images.google.com/images ? hl = en&amp;safe = off&amp;um = 1&amp;sa = 1&amp;q = RQ-170 + Sentinel&amp;btnG = Search&amp;aq = f&amp;oq = &amp;aqi = g10&amp;start = 0 [ google.com ] wtf.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;um=1&amp;sa=1&amp;q=RQ-170+Sentinel&amp;btnG=Search&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10&amp;start=0 [google.com]


wtf.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336628</id>
	<title>X-45 outgrowth?</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1260040020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the crappy pic at AviationLeak, it looks like it may be an outgrowth of the <a href="http://cdn.globalaircraft.org/media/img/planes/lowres/x-45\_2.jpg" title="globalaircraft.org">X-45</a> [globalaircraft.org] development <a href="http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/x-45\_ucav.pl#photos" title="globalaircraft.org">bird</a> [globalaircraft.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the crappy pic at AviationLeak , it looks like it may be an outgrowth of the X-45 [ globalaircraft.org ] development bird [ globalaircraft.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the crappy pic at AviationLeak, it looks like it may be an outgrowth of the X-45 [globalaircraft.org] development bird [globalaircraft.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339572</id>
	<title>Re:One thing it can never achieve.</title>
	<author>captjc</author>
	<datestamp>1260017700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was a nice looking bird, but nothing looks as badass as the F-117. The only way it could have been better is if it had a fucking gun. You only have so many missiles. A good pilot could take out quite a few bandits with a good cannon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a nice looking bird , but nothing looks as badass as the F-117 .
The only way it could have been better is if it had a fucking gun .
You only have so many missiles .
A good pilot could take out quite a few bandits with a good cannon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a nice looking bird, but nothing looks as badass as the F-117.
The only way it could have been better is if it had a fucking gun.
You only have so many missiles.
A good pilot could take out quite a few bandits with a good cannon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336618</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Eventually, this will be flying more than our own pilots will be, due to the fact that pilots cannot be mass-produced.</p></div><p>Also, an autonomous aircraft can maneuver better than a plane with a human pilot. When you remove the pilot you no longer need to worry about what kind of G-forces they are subjected to. You can build an airplane that can withstand way more G-forces than you could ever train a pilot to withstand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually , this will be flying more than our own pilots will be , due to the fact that pilots can not be mass-produced.Also , an autonomous aircraft can maneuver better than a plane with a human pilot .
When you remove the pilot you no longer need to worry about what kind of G-forces they are subjected to .
You can build an airplane that can withstand way more G-forces than you could ever train a pilot to withstand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually, this will be flying more than our own pilots will be, due to the fact that pilots cannot be mass-produced.Also, an autonomous aircraft can maneuver better than a plane with a human pilot.
When you remove the pilot you no longer need to worry about what kind of G-forces they are subjected to.
You can build an airplane that can withstand way more G-forces than you could ever train a pilot to withstand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30343964</id>
	<title>Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban??</title>
	<author>shiftless</author>
	<datestamp>1260122760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that doesn't have radar (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)?</i></p><p>For exactly that reason. The aircraft is advanced and experimental, and they want to test it in combat without running the risk of having it shot down then recovered and reverse engineered by the enemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that does n't have radar ( nor any capability to threaten aircraft ) ? For exactly that reason .
The aircraft is advanced and experimental , and they want to test it in combat without running the risk of having it shot down then recovered and reverse engineered by the enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that doesn't have radar (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)?For exactly that reason.
The aircraft is advanced and experimental, and they want to test it in combat without running the risk of having it shot down then recovered and reverse engineered by the enemy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336558</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really that necessary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1, if not 2 generations ahead of its allies.<br>Besides, its enemies still have WWII-level technologies."<br>Really? The latest Russian SAMS and fighters seem to be well in advance of The ME-262 and FLAK 88.<br>Maybe you don't know it but Drones tend to be pretty cheap for what they do so they are super expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1 , if not 2 generations ahead of its allies.Besides , its enemies still have WWII-level technologies. " Really ?
The latest Russian SAMS and fighters seem to be well in advance of The ME-262 and FLAK 88.Maybe you do n't know it but Drones tend to be pretty cheap for what they do so they are super expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1, if not 2 generations ahead of its allies.Besides, its enemies still have WWII-level technologies."Really?
The latest Russian SAMS and fighters seem to be well in advance of The ME-262 and FLAK 88.Maybe you don't know it but Drones tend to be pretty cheap for what they do so they are super expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30342188</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260098160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He likely meant that staying airborne for 24+ hours and longer is a living pilot no-no, which would make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He likely meant that staying airborne for 24 + hours and longer is a living pilot no-no , which would make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He likely meant that staying airborne for 24+ hours and longer is a living pilot no-no, which would make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339130</id>
	<title>Great to see the US use its technology well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260014460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are getting far too hung up conspiracy theories because of theit stealth aspect rather than recognising their perfectly simple reconnaisance " we can stay up there for hours and provide live feeds" value. These aircraft are obviously there to gather intelligence in the badlands: Afghanistan - to support anti taliban missions on the ground - and NW Pakistan - to support the predator campaign targeting the high and midlevel AQ leadership. Simple really... and good to see it them action too. The troops down there can use the help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are getting far too hung up conspiracy theories because of theit stealth aspect rather than recognising their perfectly simple reconnaisance " we can stay up there for hours and provide live feeds " value .
These aircraft are obviously there to gather intelligence in the badlands : Afghanistan - to support anti taliban missions on the ground - and NW Pakistan - to support the predator campaign targeting the high and midlevel AQ leadership .
Simple really... and good to see it them action too .
The troops down there can use the help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are getting far too hung up conspiracy theories because of theit stealth aspect rather than recognising their perfectly simple reconnaisance " we can stay up there for hours and provide live feeds" value.
These aircraft are obviously there to gather intelligence in the badlands: Afghanistan - to support anti taliban missions on the ground - and NW Pakistan - to support the predator campaign targeting the high and midlevel AQ leadership.
Simple really... and good to see it them action too.
The troops down there can use the help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338744</id>
	<title>And here's tomorrow's article in full</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1260011460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Military leaders have revealed the existence of a top-secret spy<br>plane.  Defense contractors are rumoured to have developed a<br>revolutionary stealth technology based on a combination of smoke and<br>mirrors.  The unmanned aircraft is invisible to the naked eye and<br>inaudible in flight.  Air force spokesman General McBluster, speaking<br>at a press event, told reporters "This technology will give us the<br>ultimate edge.  Some say the military simply pours money into<br>fruitless projects but these are worth every cent at $1B each".  The<br>aircraft is fuelled by a new eco-friendly bio-fuel known as Snake Oil,<br>which is manufactured by the plane's designers.  Asked about any<br>potential downsides, Gen McBluster commented "Sometimes they are<br>difficult to find.  Looking at them, you'd almost think the hangers<br>were completely empty.  Believe it or not we've even had engineers<br>accidentally pour fuel on the ground where they thought the aircraft<br>were parked!  Actually, it happens rather a lot.  So they really are<br>remarkably stealthy.  There's currently a glitch with the radios that<br>is preventing communications with the aircraft.  But the manufacturers<br>assure us that these are just teething problems."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Military leaders have revealed the existence of a top-secret spyplane .
Defense contractors are rumoured to have developed arevolutionary stealth technology based on a combination of smoke andmirrors .
The unmanned aircraft is invisible to the naked eye andinaudible in flight .
Air force spokesman General McBluster , speakingat a press event , told reporters " This technology will give us theultimate edge .
Some say the military simply pours money intofruitless projects but these are worth every cent at $ 1B each " .
Theaircraft is fuelled by a new eco-friendly bio-fuel known as Snake Oil,which is manufactured by the plane 's designers .
Asked about anypotential downsides , Gen McBluster commented " Sometimes they aredifficult to find .
Looking at them , you 'd almost think the hangerswere completely empty .
Believe it or not we 've even had engineersaccidentally pour fuel on the ground where they thought the aircraftwere parked !
Actually , it happens rather a lot .
So they really areremarkably stealthy .
There 's currently a glitch with the radios thatis preventing communications with the aircraft .
But the manufacturersassure us that these are just teething problems .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Military leaders have revealed the existence of a top-secret spyplane.
Defense contractors are rumoured to have developed arevolutionary stealth technology based on a combination of smoke andmirrors.
The unmanned aircraft is invisible to the naked eye andinaudible in flight.
Air force spokesman General McBluster, speakingat a press event, told reporters "This technology will give us theultimate edge.
Some say the military simply pours money intofruitless projects but these are worth every cent at $1B each".
Theaircraft is fuelled by a new eco-friendly bio-fuel known as Snake Oil,which is manufactured by the plane's designers.
Asked about anypotential downsides, Gen McBluster commented "Sometimes they aredifficult to find.
Looking at them, you'd almost think the hangerswere completely empty.
Believe it or not we've even had engineersaccidentally pour fuel on the ground where they thought the aircraftwere parked!
Actually, it happens rather a lot.
So they really areremarkably stealthy.
There's currently a glitch with the radios thatis preventing communications with the aircraft.
But the manufacturersassure us that these are just teething problems.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337134</id>
	<title>Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban??</title>
	<author>jstults</author>
	<datestamp>1260043020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The message is "Fuck you, <b>China</b>; we'll talk as though we're your friends, but we own your airspace and can see every hair on your bare asses, so don't try anything."</p></div><p>FTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The message is " Fuck you , China ; we 'll talk as though we 're your friends , but we own your airspace and can see every hair on your bare asses , so do n't try anything .
" FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The message is "Fuck you, China; we'll talk as though we're your friends, but we own your airspace and can see every hair on your bare asses, so don't try anything.
"FTFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336504</id>
	<title>They just want you to think they confirmed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entire RQ-170 program is a setup. The actual stealth aircraft, RQ-170R is the real stealth aircraft, a saucer-shaped design that flies slightly behind the RQ-170 flying wing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire RQ-170 program is a setup .
The actual stealth aircraft , RQ-170R is the real stealth aircraft , a saucer-shaped design that flies slightly behind the RQ-170 flying wing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire RQ-170 program is a setup.
The actual stealth aircraft, RQ-170R is the real stealth aircraft, a saucer-shaped design that flies slightly behind the RQ-170 flying wing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339300</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really that necessary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260015660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just one Air Logistics Center provides jobs for 20,000 personnel, at least half of that number in contractors, 3X that combined number in support jobs (restaurants, stores, etc), and over $3B in economic impact to the local/state economy.  There are 15 major logistics centers in the U.S.  No one is breaking windows (beside the occasional sonic boom from an F-15 on a check flight).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one Air Logistics Center provides jobs for 20,000 personnel , at least half of that number in contractors , 3X that combined number in support jobs ( restaurants , stores , etc ) , and over $ 3B in economic impact to the local/state economy .
There are 15 major logistics centers in the U.S. No one is breaking windows ( beside the occasional sonic boom from an F-15 on a check flight ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one Air Logistics Center provides jobs for 20,000 personnel, at least half of that number in contractors, 3X that combined number in support jobs (restaurants, stores, etc), and over $3B in economic impact to the local/state economy.
There are 15 major logistics centers in the U.S.  No one is breaking windows (beside the occasional sonic boom from an F-15 on a check flight).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337780</id>
	<title>Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban??</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1260004200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course the most radar invisible super secret stealth aircraft are still vulnerable to the "Put a guy on a hill and have him look up" line of defense. The next pass over that hill will find 20 more guys with stinger missiles (and whatever else we gave them). Eventually one's going to be shot down and we're going to look just as bad as the Russians and their "Great Soviet Helicopters of Awesome"...
<br> <br>
But on the other hand, deploy enough unmanned vehicles (make them cute like wall-e so as to not scare the locals), pull out all the troops and run the war from home for the next 20 years. Make a hit MMORPG out of it and let the teenage outcasts do all the work...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the most radar invisible super secret stealth aircraft are still vulnerable to the " Put a guy on a hill and have him look up " line of defense .
The next pass over that hill will find 20 more guys with stinger missiles ( and whatever else we gave them ) .
Eventually one 's going to be shot down and we 're going to look just as bad as the Russians and their " Great Soviet Helicopters of Awesome " .. . But on the other hand , deploy enough unmanned vehicles ( make them cute like wall-e so as to not scare the locals ) , pull out all the troops and run the war from home for the next 20 years .
Make a hit MMORPG out of it and let the teenage outcasts do all the work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the most radar invisible super secret stealth aircraft are still vulnerable to the "Put a guy on a hill and have him look up" line of defense.
The next pass over that hill will find 20 more guys with stinger missiles (and whatever else we gave them).
Eventually one's going to be shot down and we're going to look just as bad as the Russians and their "Great Soviet Helicopters of Awesome"...
 
But on the other hand, deploy enough unmanned vehicles (make them cute like wall-e so as to not scare the locals), pull out all the troops and run the war from home for the next 20 years.
Make a hit MMORPG out of it and let the teenage outcasts do all the work...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338900</id>
	<title>Flying Wing</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1260012840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, the Flying Wing, ya gotta love it. Let's set the Wayback Machine to 1935<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjXr5w3M4mc" title="youtube.com">Horten Ho-2 Flying Wing Test Flight 1935</a> [youtube.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , the Flying Wing , ya got ta love it .
Let 's set the Wayback Machine to 1935 .... Horten Ho-2 Flying Wing Test Flight 1935 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, the Flying Wing, ya gotta love it.
Let's set the Wayback Machine to 1935 .... Horten Ho-2 Flying Wing Test Flight 1935 [youtube.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336724</id>
	<title>Makes sense.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1260040560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Makes sense.  A stealthed recon aircraft should be small.  Recon is mostly flying preprogrammed flight paths, so the pilot doesn't make many decisions.   Hence a moderate-sized UAV.
</p><p>
The Air Force guys hate it, but UAVs are getting the job done.  The Army is going for more automation; they use autoland on their Predators, and have far fewer crashes than the USAF stick jocks who land the things manually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes sense .
A stealthed recon aircraft should be small .
Recon is mostly flying preprogrammed flight paths , so the pilot does n't make many decisions .
Hence a moderate-sized UAV .
The Air Force guys hate it , but UAVs are getting the job done .
The Army is going for more automation ; they use autoland on their Predators , and have far fewer crashes than the USAF stick jocks who land the things manually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Makes sense.
A stealthed recon aircraft should be small.
Recon is mostly flying preprogrammed flight paths, so the pilot doesn't make many decisions.
Hence a moderate-sized UAV.
The Air Force guys hate it, but UAVs are getting the job done.
The Army is going for more automation; they use autoland on their Predators, and have far fewer crashes than the USAF stick jocks who land the things manually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337144</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1260043080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>according to the Military Channel's own documentaries</p></div></blockquote><p>That's roughly as reliable as The Onion or the <a href="http://weeklyworldnews.com/" title="weeklyworldnews.com">Weekly World News</a> [weeklyworldnews.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>according to the Military Channel 's own documentariesThat 's roughly as reliable as The Onion or the Weekly World News [ weeklyworldnews.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>according to the Military Channel's own documentariesThat's roughly as reliable as The Onion or the Weekly World News [weeklyworldnews.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340876</id>
	<title>Re:Photo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260031260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337180</id>
	<title>Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban??</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1260043380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One comment on tfa raised an obvious question: Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that doesn't have radar (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)?</p></div></blockquote><p>For the same reason we use Aegis destroyers against pirates off of Somalia - we use what we have.  We don't keep any 18th century sloops around in case we need to go against fishing boats, nor any biplane drones for use in Afghanistan.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>The next question, about why this story was leaked</p></div></blockquote><p>This isn't a leak - it's an official USAF confirmation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One comment on tfa raised an obvious question : Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that does n't have radar ( nor any capability to threaten aircraft ) ? For the same reason we use Aegis destroyers against pirates off of Somalia - we use what we have .
We do n't keep any 18th century sloops around in case we need to go against fishing boats , nor any biplane drones for use in Afghanistan .
  The next question , about why this story was leakedThis is n't a leak - it 's an official USAF confirmation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One comment on tfa raised an obvious question: Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that doesn't have radar (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)?For the same reason we use Aegis destroyers against pirates off of Somalia - we use what we have.
We don't keep any 18th century sloops around in case we need to go against fishing boats, nor any biplane drones for use in Afghanistan.
  The next question, about why this story was leakedThis isn't a leak - it's an official USAF confirmation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30342004</id>
	<title>I'd be a whole lot more thrilled...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1260094500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to find out that it had mount points for a range of weapons - and could be cranked out rapidly...say, a 100 a day...on short notice.  If need be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to find out that it had mount points for a range of weapons - and could be cranked out rapidly...say , a 100 a day...on short notice .
If need be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to find out that it had mount points for a range of weapons - and could be cranked out rapidly...say, a 100 a day...on short notice.
If need be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30342680</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260108180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings, and can even do so in the dark. (a milestone feat in itself, due many factors)</p></div><p>Landing in the dark is no harder for an autonomous craft than landing during the day, not least because there's enough beacon gear on a carrier to land without any visual sensors at all.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's also capable of 24+ hour flight, which is awesome for scouting missions waiting for a mobile target, and is capable of mid-air refueling. (this is a living pilot no-no, and potentially keeps the craft up as long as it needs to be).</p></div><p>Refuelling and refuelled vessels are currently flown by humans. With a little more automation (robotic fueling arm, tandem flight processing) it wouldn't even be hard (for the pilot.) If the technology can be used in a UAV, it can be used during refuelling by a human pilot.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Eventually, this will be flying more than our own pilots will be, due to the fact that pilots cannot be mass-produced.</p></div><p>True.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Eventually, we WILL be putting arms on them, even if only because there might not be a good enough alternative.</p></div><p>On airplanes? You're nuts. Oh wait, you mean weapons. This one can drop bombs already, and we've already got some other armed drones. Also let's not forget that a cruise missile is basically a kamikaze UAV.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, rumors about similar tanks are in the works...</p></div><p>Next you're going to tell us how giant robots are just over the horizon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings , and can even do so in the dark .
( a milestone feat in itself , due many factors ) Landing in the dark is no harder for an autonomous craft than landing during the day , not least because there 's enough beacon gear on a carrier to land without any visual sensors at all.It 's also capable of 24 + hour flight , which is awesome for scouting missions waiting for a mobile target , and is capable of mid-air refueling .
( this is a living pilot no-no , and potentially keeps the craft up as long as it needs to be ) .Refuelling and refuelled vessels are currently flown by humans .
With a little more automation ( robotic fueling arm , tandem flight processing ) it would n't even be hard ( for the pilot .
) If the technology can be used in a UAV , it can be used during refuelling by a human pilot.Eventually , this will be flying more than our own pilots will be , due to the fact that pilots can not be mass-produced.True.Eventually , we WILL be putting arms on them , even if only because there might not be a good enough alternative.On airplanes ?
You 're nuts .
Oh wait , you mean weapons .
This one can drop bombs already , and we 've already got some other armed drones .
Also let 's not forget that a cruise missile is basically a kamikaze UAV.Also , rumors about similar tanks are in the works...Next you 're going to tell us how giant robots are just over the horizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings, and can even do so in the dark.
(a milestone feat in itself, due many factors)Landing in the dark is no harder for an autonomous craft than landing during the day, not least because there's enough beacon gear on a carrier to land without any visual sensors at all.It's also capable of 24+ hour flight, which is awesome for scouting missions waiting for a mobile target, and is capable of mid-air refueling.
(this is a living pilot no-no, and potentially keeps the craft up as long as it needs to be).Refuelling and refuelled vessels are currently flown by humans.
With a little more automation (robotic fueling arm, tandem flight processing) it wouldn't even be hard (for the pilot.
) If the technology can be used in a UAV, it can be used during refuelling by a human pilot.Eventually, this will be flying more than our own pilots will be, due to the fact that pilots cannot be mass-produced.True.Eventually, we WILL be putting arms on them, even if only because there might not be a good enough alternative.On airplanes?
You're nuts.
Oh wait, you mean weapons.
This one can drop bombs already, and we've already got some other armed drones.
Also let's not forget that a cruise missile is basically a kamikaze UAV.Also, rumors about similar tanks are in the works...Next you're going to tell us how giant robots are just over the horizon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337194</id>
	<title>Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban??</title>
	<author>kaiser423</author>
	<datestamp>1260043500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Either that, or they were concerned about the fact that Pakistani radar crews are most likely compromised by Al Qaeda, and are alerting them to our flight paths.  Hard to get good intel when they know to go hide.
<br> <br>
Best way around that is a stealth plane...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either that , or they were concerned about the fact that Pakistani radar crews are most likely compromised by Al Qaeda , and are alerting them to our flight paths .
Hard to get good intel when they know to go hide .
Best way around that is a stealth plane.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either that, or they were concerned about the fact that Pakistani radar crews are most likely compromised by Al Qaeda, and are alerting them to our flight paths.
Hard to get good intel when they know to go hide.
Best way around that is a stealth plane...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336836</id>
	<title>Photo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260041220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Skyshot.jpg" title="wikimedia.org">picture</a> [wikimedia.org] of five of them in action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a picture [ wikimedia.org ] of five of them in action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a picture [wikimedia.org] of five of them in action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336370</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really that necessary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fun fact: The United States spends as much on its military as the rest of the world... combined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fun fact : The United States spends as much on its military as the rest of the world... combined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fun fact: The United States spends as much on its military as the rest of the world... combined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337346</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1260044520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This craft is also capable of bombing missions, according to the Military Channel's own documentaries on experimental craft. It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts.  The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings, and can even do so in the dark. (a milestone feat in itself, due many factors)</p></div><p>Are you sure you're thinking of the RQ-170 and not the X-47B?  The two appear to be vastly different aircraft, even if they do look similar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This craft is also capable of bombing missions , according to the Military Channel 's own documentaries on experimental craft .
It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts .
The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings , and can even do so in the dark .
( a milestone feat in itself , due many factors ) Are you sure you 're thinking of the RQ-170 and not the X-47B ?
The two appear to be vastly different aircraft , even if they do look similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This craft is also capable of bombing missions, according to the Military Channel's own documentaries on experimental craft.
It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts.
The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings, and can even do so in the dark.
(a milestone feat in itself, due many factors)Are you sure you're thinking of the RQ-170 and not the X-47B?
The two appear to be vastly different aircraft, even if they do look similar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338146</id>
	<title>Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban??</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1260006660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One comment on tfa raised an obvious question: Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that doesn't have radar (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)? One clue may be that the closest international border to Kandahar is Pakistan's,</p></div></blockquote><p>

There are other borders nearby, such as China, Iran, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One comment on tfa raised an obvious question : Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that does n't have radar ( nor any capability to threaten aircraft ) ?
One clue may be that the closest international border to Kandahar is Pakistan 's , There are other borders nearby , such as China , Iran , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One comment on tfa raised an obvious question: Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that doesn't have radar (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)?
One clue may be that the closest international border to Kandahar is Pakistan's,

There are other borders nearby, such as China, Iran, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778</id>
	<title>Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban??</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1260040860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>One comment on tfa raised an obvious question: Why deploy an advanced and experimental <i>stealth</i> aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that <i>doesn't have radar</i> (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)? One clue may be that the closest international border to Kandahar is Pakistan's, and Pakistan certainly does have radar. The next question, about why this story was leaked complete with a picture, might have a related answer: The message is "Fuck you, Pakistan; we'll talk as though we're your friends, but we own your airspace and can see every hair on your bare asses, so don't try anything."</htmltext>
<tokenext>One comment on tfa raised an obvious question : Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that does n't have radar ( nor any capability to threaten aircraft ) ?
One clue may be that the closest international border to Kandahar is Pakistan 's , and Pakistan certainly does have radar .
The next question , about why this story was leaked complete with a picture , might have a related answer : The message is " Fuck you , Pakistan ; we 'll talk as though we 're your friends , but we own your airspace and can see every hair on your bare asses , so do n't try anything .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One comment on tfa raised an obvious question: Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that doesn't have radar (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)?
One clue may be that the closest international border to Kandahar is Pakistan's, and Pakistan certainly does have radar.
The next question, about why this story was leaked complete with a picture, might have a related answer: The message is "Fuck you, Pakistan; we'll talk as though we're your friends, but we own your airspace and can see every hair on your bare asses, so don't try anything.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336210</id>
	<title>top secret</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260037620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Theyre just telling us its a secret new invisible jet because they dont want to tell us what theyre <i>really</i> working on</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theyre just telling us its a secret new invisible jet because they dont want to tell us what theyre really working on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theyre just telling us its a secret new invisible jet because they dont want to tell us what theyre really working on</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336404</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really that necessary?</title>
	<author>RightwingNutjob</author>
	<datestamp>1260038820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's just what Kang and Kodos want us to do...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just what Kang and Kodos want us to do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just what Kang and Kodos want us to do...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338656</id>
	<title>Re:WW2 airframe</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1260010800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first flying wings go back to before ww I.</p><p>List of flying wings and years:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_flying\_wing\_aircraft" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_flying\_wing\_aircraft</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first flying wings go back to before ww I.List of flying wings and years : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _flying \ _wing \ _aircraft [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first flying wings go back to before ww I.List of flying wings and years:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_flying\_wing\_aircraft [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337384</id>
	<title>Sonic booms out west...</title>
	<author>DustyShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1260044760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this plane the cause of all the sonic booms that were heard out west a couple years back?<br> <a href="http://farshores.org/n06boom6.htm" title="farshores.org">http://farshores.org/n06boom6.htm</a> [farshores.org] <br>
or more recent ones:<br>
<a href="http://boingboing.net/2009/03/06/mystery-sonic-boom-i.html" title="boingboing.net">http://boingboing.net/2009/03/06/mystery-sonic-boom-i.html</a> [boingboing.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this plane the cause of all the sonic booms that were heard out west a couple years back ?
http : //farshores.org/n06boom6.htm [ farshores.org ] or more recent ones : http : //boingboing.net/2009/03/06/mystery-sonic-boom-i.html [ boingboing.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this plane the cause of all the sonic booms that were heard out west a couple years back?
http://farshores.org/n06boom6.htm [farshores.org] 
or more recent ones:
http://boingboing.net/2009/03/06/mystery-sonic-boom-i.html [boingboing.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338422</id>
	<title>Airspace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260008880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most developed countries do not allow UAV's in their airspace.  If you want to test one....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most developed countries do not allow UAV 's in their airspace .
If you want to test one... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most developed countries do not allow UAV's in their airspace.
If you want to test one....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30341214</id>
	<title>Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban??</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1260036300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; To test the hardware in a potentially hostile environment before using it in a *really* hostile environment.</p><p>
&nbsp; Political considerations aside, these R&amp;D programs aren't cheap. Best to know how it performs in every situation before it's used in one that's mission critical.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  To test the hardware in a potentially hostile environment before using it in a * really * hostile environment .
  Political considerations aside , these R&amp;D programs are n't cheap .
Best to know how it performs in every situation before it 's used in one that 's mission critical.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  To test the hardware in a potentially hostile environment before using it in a *really* hostile environment.
  Political considerations aside, these R&amp;D programs aren't cheap.
Best to know how it performs in every situation before it's used in one that's mission critical.SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336796</id>
	<title>Coming to a city near you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260041040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once Empress Palin has been placed on the throne and Martial Law declared to rid God's Country of the godless liberal commie pinko socialists that have brought the country to its knees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once Empress Palin has been placed on the throne and Martial Law declared to rid God 's Country of the godless liberal commie pinko socialists that have brought the country to its knees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once Empress Palin has been placed on the throne and Martial Law declared to rid God's Country of the godless liberal commie pinko socialists that have brought the country to its knees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339230</id>
	<title>B2 jr.?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260015180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't <a href="http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/6/a82ab3ef-8d53-458d-86ad-01dff69de2b4.Full.jpg" title="aviationweek.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [aviationweek.com] just a scaled down B2?</p><p>LOL at the useless cockpit bulge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this [ aviationweek.com ] just a scaled down B2 ? LOL at the useless cockpit bulge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this [aviationweek.com] just a scaled down B2?LOL at the useless cockpit bulge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336232</id>
	<title>Is it really that necessary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260037680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1, if not 2 generations ahead of its allies.<br>Besides, its enemies still have WWII-level technologies.</p><p>Does it really need to spend so much billions on finding -yet- more advanced stealth technology?<br>Isn't the U.S. already technology superior to everyone anyway?</p><p>Sounds like there are so many better ways the U.S. could spend its billions of dollars on, like healthcare, infrastructure projects for a very much underdeveloped public and railway transportation, and maybe paying down its trillion dollar debt.</p><p>Yes, the military complex creates jobs, but there are jobs in OTHER SECTORS as well, which imho are more beneficial to the overall well being of human civilization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1 , if not 2 generations ahead of its allies.Besides , its enemies still have WWII-level technologies.Does it really need to spend so much billions on finding -yet- more advanced stealth technology ? Is n't the U.S. already technology superior to everyone anyway ? Sounds like there are so many better ways the U.S. could spend its billions of dollars on , like healthcare , infrastructure projects for a very much underdeveloped public and railway transportation , and maybe paying down its trillion dollar debt.Yes , the military complex creates jobs , but there are jobs in OTHER SECTORS as well , which imho are more beneficial to the overall well being of human civilization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1, if not 2 generations ahead of its allies.Besides, its enemies still have WWII-level technologies.Does it really need to spend so much billions on finding -yet- more advanced stealth technology?Isn't the U.S. already technology superior to everyone anyway?Sounds like there are so many better ways the U.S. could spend its billions of dollars on, like healthcare, infrastructure projects for a very much underdeveloped public and railway transportation, and maybe paying down its trillion dollar debt.Yes, the military complex creates jobs, but there are jobs in OTHER SECTORS as well, which imho are more beneficial to the overall well being of human civilization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336376</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really that necessary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yes, the military complex creates jobs</p></div></blockquote><p> No it doesn't.  Breaking windows to give the glass maker work to do doesn't create anything.  A case can be made for infrastructure projects as they tend to facilitate the creation of actual things.  Unfortunately, the military is in little danger of going on a diet any time soon as the US is still in "be afraid" mode.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the military complex creates jobs No it does n't .
Breaking windows to give the glass maker work to do does n't create anything .
A case can be made for infrastructure projects as they tend to facilitate the creation of actual things .
Unfortunately , the military is in little danger of going on a diet any time soon as the US is still in " be afraid " mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the military complex creates jobs No it doesn't.
Breaking windows to give the glass maker work to do doesn't create anything.
A case can be made for infrastructure projects as they tend to facilitate the creation of actual things.
Unfortunately, the military is in little danger of going on a diet any time soon as the US is still in "be afraid" mode.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337358</id>
	<title>That's nothing. Check the army medical corps!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260044640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404600.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404600.html</a> [washingtonpost.com]<br>"They had learned to man the turrets and handle the grenade launchers, to hike up rock-strewn hills at 90-degree inclines."</p><p>Aren't those  "cliffs"? That's some hiking there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404600.html [ washingtonpost.com ] " They had learned to man the turrets and handle the grenade launchers , to hike up rock-strewn hills at 90-degree inclines .
" Are n't those " cliffs " ?
That 's some hiking there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404600.html [washingtonpost.com]"They had learned to man the turrets and handle the grenade launchers, to hike up rock-strewn hills at 90-degree inclines.
"Aren't those  "cliffs"?
That's some hiking there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336612</id>
	<title>WW2 airframe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might be wrong, but I sure as heck see similarities to WW2 Nazi prototype aircraft ( might have been Japan's) if I can find the source I'll post it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might be wrong , but I sure as heck see similarities to WW2 Nazi prototype aircraft ( might have been Japan 's ) if I can find the source I 'll post it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might be wrong, but I sure as heck see similarities to WW2 Nazi prototype aircraft ( might have been Japan's) if I can find the source I'll post it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339406</id>
	<title>Re:top secret</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260016380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclosure: I am formerly an F-117 avionics technician, of what used to be the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing at Tonopah Test Range, NV (the original home of the F-117 Nighthawk). That said, I've been a civilian for nearly 20 years, but...</p><p>The USAF 'fessed up to the existence of the F-117 in 1988 (and included a fuzzy-at-best photograph). That was what they were "really" working on at the time. Better stuff (cf. the B-2) came out later, and from other projects. Before 1988, we were considered to be working on an A-7 avionics upgrade program - my old orders still reflect that (while my old training records had a ton of phrases reading "see classified master"). After 1988, the A-7s were quietly sent back to the Arizona boneyard they came out of, and we were officially working on the Stealth Fighter from that point on. There was no "really working on" bit to it - that's what we were doing.</p><p>Now it may or may not be true that they are/were/will-be working on something else. Those may come out in due time, or they may be quietly buried or shelved if they don't work out. Fact is, there may well be more than one project in motion, but the confirmation or denial of those projects simply will not happen unless/until the USAF says something about 'em individually and in particular. Even during my 'tenure', we only knew about our baby - we didn't talk to others about our doings, and they didn't talk to us about theirs.</p><p>Sorry, but that's just the way it is *shrug*. It's weird, it's secretive, and you just got along in spite of it. If I were a betting man, I'd say that the odds were excellent of other projects going on... but you and I won't know about them until the gov't is good and ready to say something about 'em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclosure : I am formerly an F-117 avionics technician , of what used to be the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing at Tonopah Test Range , NV ( the original home of the F-117 Nighthawk ) .
That said , I 've been a civilian for nearly 20 years , but...The USAF 'fessed up to the existence of the F-117 in 1988 ( and included a fuzzy-at-best photograph ) .
That was what they were " really " working on at the time .
Better stuff ( cf .
the B-2 ) came out later , and from other projects .
Before 1988 , we were considered to be working on an A-7 avionics upgrade program - my old orders still reflect that ( while my old training records had a ton of phrases reading " see classified master " ) .
After 1988 , the A-7s were quietly sent back to the Arizona boneyard they came out of , and we were officially working on the Stealth Fighter from that point on .
There was no " really working on " bit to it - that 's what we were doing.Now it may or may not be true that they are/were/will-be working on something else .
Those may come out in due time , or they may be quietly buried or shelved if they do n't work out .
Fact is , there may well be more than one project in motion , but the confirmation or denial of those projects simply will not happen unless/until the USAF says something about 'em individually and in particular .
Even during my 'tenure ' , we only knew about our baby - we did n't talk to others about our doings , and they did n't talk to us about theirs.Sorry , but that 's just the way it is * shrug * .
It 's weird , it 's secretive , and you just got along in spite of it .
If I were a betting man , I 'd say that the odds were excellent of other projects going on... but you and I wo n't know about them until the gov't is good and ready to say something about 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclosure: I am formerly an F-117 avionics technician, of what used to be the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing at Tonopah Test Range, NV (the original home of the F-117 Nighthawk).
That said, I've been a civilian for nearly 20 years, but...The USAF 'fessed up to the existence of the F-117 in 1988 (and included a fuzzy-at-best photograph).
That was what they were "really" working on at the time.
Better stuff (cf.
the B-2) came out later, and from other projects.
Before 1988, we were considered to be working on an A-7 avionics upgrade program - my old orders still reflect that (while my old training records had a ton of phrases reading "see classified master").
After 1988, the A-7s were quietly sent back to the Arizona boneyard they came out of, and we were officially working on the Stealth Fighter from that point on.
There was no "really working on" bit to it - that's what we were doing.Now it may or may not be true that they are/were/will-be working on something else.
Those may come out in due time, or they may be quietly buried or shelved if they don't work out.
Fact is, there may well be more than one project in motion, but the confirmation or denial of those projects simply will not happen unless/until the USAF says something about 'em individually and in particular.
Even during my 'tenure', we only knew about our baby - we didn't talk to others about our doings, and they didn't talk to us about theirs.Sorry, but that's just the way it is *shrug*.
It's weird, it's secretive, and you just got along in spite of it.
If I were a betting man, I'd say that the odds were excellent of other projects going on... but you and I won't know about them until the gov't is good and ready to say something about 'em.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338590</id>
	<title>This has got to be the most shameless pun ever</title>
	<author>MakinBacon</author>
	<datestamp>1260010200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rumors of a secret new jet have been flying since 2007</p></div><p>Really!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rumors of a secret new jet have been flying since 2007Really !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rumors of a secret new jet have been flying since 2007Really!
?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340198</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1260023460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that are so overengineered that they tried to break it and couldn't (experimental model).</p></div><p>Indestructo tank?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that are so overengineered that they tried to break it and could n't ( experimental model ) .Indestructo tank ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that are so overengineered that they tried to break it and couldn't (experimental model).Indestructo tank?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338198</id>
	<title>Stealth, huh?</title>
	<author>trum4n</author>
	<datestamp>1260007080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...never saw that coming....</htmltext>
<tokenext>...never saw that coming... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...never saw that coming....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337800</id>
	<title>Here you go</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1260004260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten\_Ho\_229" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten\_Ho\_229</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten \ _Ho \ _229 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten\_Ho\_229 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337050</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>MeatBag PussRocket</author>
	<datestamp>1260042540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm actually more interested in the paint on the aircraf, FTA: </p><p><div class="quote"><p> Many questions remain about the aircraft&rsquo;s use. If it is a high-altitude aircraft it is painted an unusual color &ndash; medium grey overall, like Predator or Reaper, rather then the dark gray or overall black that provides the best concealment at very high altitudes.</p></div><p>i know theyve developed asome sort of "radar absorbant" type materials and coatings in the past and i wonder what special coating this thing has. my assumption is that this will probably see lots of service over places like North Korea and possibly China, where these countries spend a good bundle on defense technology. why sacrifice the visual camouflage?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm actually more interested in the paint on the aircraf , FTA : Many questions remain about the aircraft    s use .
If it is a high-altitude aircraft it is painted an unusual color    medium grey overall , like Predator or Reaper , rather then the dark gray or overall black that provides the best concealment at very high altitudes.i know theyve developed asome sort of " radar absorbant " type materials and coatings in the past and i wonder what special coating this thing has .
my assumption is that this will probably see lots of service over places like North Korea and possibly China , where these countries spend a good bundle on defense technology .
why sacrifice the visual camouflage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm actually more interested in the paint on the aircraf, FTA:  Many questions remain about the aircraft’s use.
If it is a high-altitude aircraft it is painted an unusual color – medium grey overall, like Predator or Reaper, rather then the dark gray or overall black that provides the best concealment at very high altitudes.i know theyve developed asome sort of "radar absorbant" type materials and coatings in the past and i wonder what special coating this thing has.
my assumption is that this will probably see lots of service over places like North Korea and possibly China, where these countries spend a good bundle on defense technology.
why sacrifice the visual camouflage?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337422</id>
	<title>BWB</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1260045060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, so we have loads of experience with Blended wing bodies in the military. How about applying that tech back to the BWB and getting it built. It can be used for Tanker, Cargo, and even bombers for the military. Likewise, it can be used for freight airlines. Then over time, we will see the regular airlines pick this up, put cargo on the outer edges and avoid the issues with having a regular airline pick it up. Why? Because it will use 30-50\% less fuel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so we have loads of experience with Blended wing bodies in the military .
How about applying that tech back to the BWB and getting it built .
It can be used for Tanker , Cargo , and even bombers for the military .
Likewise , it can be used for freight airlines .
Then over time , we will see the regular airlines pick this up , put cargo on the outer edges and avoid the issues with having a regular airline pick it up .
Why ? Because it will use 30-50 \ % less fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so we have loads of experience with Blended wing bodies in the military.
How about applying that tech back to the BWB and getting it built.
It can be used for Tanker, Cargo, and even bombers for the military.
Likewise, it can be used for freight airlines.
Then over time, we will see the regular airlines pick this up, put cargo on the outer edges and avoid the issues with having a regular airline pick it up.
Why? Because it will use 30-50\% less fuel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30342598</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense.</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260106320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah you have to feel bad for the pilots.</p></div><p>No, I really don't. They joined the <em>military</em>, they're people who decided to take a job in which you kill people. It's an all-volunteer military, except in practice for the poor kids in court on trumped-up charges as part of the fast track to enlistment, and I assume that relatively few of them become pilots. I'm betting most of them become IED fodder.</p><p>Awwww, somebody took away their flying death machines... poor murderers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah you have to feel bad for the pilots.No , I really do n't .
They joined the military , they 're people who decided to take a job in which you kill people .
It 's an all-volunteer military , except in practice for the poor kids in court on trumped-up charges as part of the fast track to enlistment , and I assume that relatively few of them become pilots .
I 'm betting most of them become IED fodder.Awwww , somebody took away their flying death machines... poor murderers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah you have to feel bad for the pilots.No, I really don't.
They joined the military, they're people who decided to take a job in which you kill people.
It's an all-volunteer military, except in practice for the poor kids in court on trumped-up charges as part of the fast track to enlistment, and I assume that relatively few of them become pilots.
I'm betting most of them become IED fodder.Awwww, somebody took away their flying death machines... poor murderers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337856</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense.</title>
	<author>justin12345</author>
	<datestamp>1260004620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah you have to feel bad for the pilots. Training your entire life to fly the most awesome machines ever made, and now they are phasing them out in favor of cheap un-manned drones. Hell, they might as well just quit training pilots and just release an XBox flight sim  that replicates the capabilities of the drones. Then just recruit the top of the XBox Live leader board. Or they could Ender's Game it and just make the kids fly the things unknowingly... though that might get messy when they put down the controller to go take a piss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah you have to feel bad for the pilots .
Training your entire life to fly the most awesome machines ever made , and now they are phasing them out in favor of cheap un-manned drones .
Hell , they might as well just quit training pilots and just release an XBox flight sim that replicates the capabilities of the drones .
Then just recruit the top of the XBox Live leader board .
Or they could Ender 's Game it and just make the kids fly the things unknowingly... though that might get messy when they put down the controller to go take a piss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah you have to feel bad for the pilots.
Training your entire life to fly the most awesome machines ever made, and now they are phasing them out in favor of cheap un-manned drones.
Hell, they might as well just quit training pilots and just release an XBox flight sim  that replicates the capabilities of the drones.
Then just recruit the top of the XBox Live leader board.
Or they could Ender's Game it and just make the kids fly the things unknowingly... though that might get messy when they put down the controller to go take a piss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337576</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really that necessary?</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1260046200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't create jobs? So if the military aerospace went away, where would those aerospace workers go? With the state of the economy right now, they'd be out of work.</p><p>And look at the wrangling over the KC-X program, why are Senators getting involved, because who ever wins will bring jobs to the site that does the production.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't create jobs ?
So if the military aerospace went away , where would those aerospace workers go ?
With the state of the economy right now , they 'd be out of work.And look at the wrangling over the KC-X program , why are Senators getting involved , because who ever wins will bring jobs to the site that does the production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't create jobs?
So if the military aerospace went away, where would those aerospace workers go?
With the state of the economy right now, they'd be out of work.And look at the wrangling over the KC-X program, why are Senators getting involved, because who ever wins will bring jobs to the site that does the production.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336508</id>
	<title>They are tesing X-304's now with the X-303 moveing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Theyre just telling us its a secret new invisible jet because they dont want to tell us what theyre <i>really</i> working on</p></div><p>They are tesing X-304's now with the X-303 moving form super super super secret to super area 51 secret</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theyre just telling us its a secret new invisible jet because they dont want to tell us what theyre really working onThey are tesing X-304 's now with the X-303 moving form super super super secret to super area 51 secret</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theyre just telling us its a secret new invisible jet because they dont want to tell us what theyre really working onThey are tesing X-304's now with the X-303 moving form super super super secret to super area 51 secret
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339196</id>
	<title>Re:Photo</title>
	<author>joebagodonuts</author>
	<datestamp>1260014880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn! I mistook those for Ninjas...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn !
I mistook those for Ninjas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn!
I mistook those for Ninjas...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338196</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>hcdejong</author>
	<datestamp>1260007080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This craft is also capable of bombing missions, according to the Military Channel's own documentaries on experimental craft. It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts.</p></div><p>It's unlikely that the Military Channel knows anything more than we do. Documentaries on current projects, especially black ones like this, are more speculation than fact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This craft is also capable of bombing missions , according to the Military Channel 's own documentaries on experimental craft .
It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts.It 's unlikely that the Military Channel knows anything more than we do .
Documentaries on current projects , especially black ones like this , are more speculation than fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This craft is also capable of bombing missions, according to the Military Channel's own documentaries on experimental craft.
It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts.It's unlikely that the Military Channel knows anything more than we do.
Documentaries on current projects, especially black ones like this, are more speculation than fact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336948</id>
	<title>"pilotless drone"??!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260041880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article refers to this craft as a "pilotless drone". Could be in for trouble!</p><p>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/chroncast/detail?blogid=5&amp;entry\_id=12853</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article refers to this craft as a " pilotless drone " .
Could be in for trouble ! http : //www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/chroncast/detail ? blogid = 5&amp;entry \ _id = 12853</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article refers to this craft as a "pilotless drone".
Could be in for trouble!http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/chroncast/detail?blogid=5&amp;entry\_id=12853</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340954</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260032280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, that is because Afganistan has such superior AA systems that any success there will translate over China, Russia, or Iran.</p><p>
&nbsp; Please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , that is because Afganistan has such superior AA systems that any success there will translate over China , Russia , or Iran .
  Please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, that is because Afganistan has such superior AA systems that any success there will translate over China, Russia, or Iran.
  Please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337378</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really that necessary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260044760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Your stat is completely inaccurate.  The US spends 41.5\% of the world's total military spending.<br>
2) Your stat is meaningless.  As a percentage of GDP, US military spending is certainly high but it's not even close to the highest (which is Saudi Arabia) and is similar with other countries with a military focus (like Russia).<br>
3) The US spends less as a percentage of GDP now than it has in many many years of its history.  In fact, if you consider war era defense spending, we spend less now than we ever have in the last 100 years.<br> <br>


How's that for fun facts?<br> <br>

p.s. some of this info you can get from here: <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending" title="globalissues.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending</a> [globalissues.org] <br>
for the history information, you'll have to dig harder.  I built my own spreadsheet to learn more about government spending (and what parties are responsible for it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Your stat is completely inaccurate .
The US spends 41.5 \ % of the world 's total military spending .
2 ) Your stat is meaningless .
As a percentage of GDP , US military spending is certainly high but it 's not even close to the highest ( which is Saudi Arabia ) and is similar with other countries with a military focus ( like Russia ) .
3 ) The US spends less as a percentage of GDP now than it has in many many years of its history .
In fact , if you consider war era defense spending , we spend less now than we ever have in the last 100 years .
How 's that for fun facts ?
p.s. some of this info you can get from here : http : //www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending [ globalissues.org ] for the history information , you 'll have to dig harder .
I built my own spreadsheet to learn more about government spending ( and what parties are responsible for it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Your stat is completely inaccurate.
The US spends 41.5\% of the world's total military spending.
2) Your stat is meaningless.
As a percentage of GDP, US military spending is certainly high but it's not even close to the highest (which is Saudi Arabia) and is similar with other countries with a military focus (like Russia).
3) The US spends less as a percentage of GDP now than it has in many many years of its history.
In fact, if you consider war era defense spending, we spend less now than we ever have in the last 100 years.
How's that for fun facts?
p.s. some of this info you can get from here: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending [globalissues.org] 
for the history information, you'll have to dig harder.
I built my own spreadsheet to learn more about government spending (and what parties are responsible for it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340698</id>
	<title>Label your spoilers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260028920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mod parent down - spoilers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mod parent down - spoilers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod parent down - spoilers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338826</id>
	<title>is this "new"?</title>
	<author>aBaldrich</author>
	<datestamp>1260012180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi I'm a guy from Argentina, a country in South America. This entry is an EPIC fail, a biblical fail. Please!
Our country is a "melting pot", so we have some tv channels in french, protuguese, italian, english, german; and many us channels are either translated or subtiteled.
I am absolutely sure I've already seen this aircraft on "The History Channel". I dont know if in the US it has the same disgusting ammount of propaganda it has here. They're pushing the borders of cultural imperialism and everything they broadcast is designed to show us the "greatness" of "our nation" (they not even say United States).
They have many military documentaries, showing how "advanced" they are in killing and destroying, etc. Unpiloted aircafts had been a recurrent topic for some months last year.

And now you say its the "new secret". wtf</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi I 'm a guy from Argentina , a country in South America .
This entry is an EPIC fail , a biblical fail .
Please ! Our country is a " melting pot " , so we have some tv channels in french , protuguese , italian , english , german ; and many us channels are either translated or subtiteled .
I am absolutely sure I 've already seen this aircraft on " The History Channel " .
I dont know if in the US it has the same disgusting ammount of propaganda it has here .
They 're pushing the borders of cultural imperialism and everything they broadcast is designed to show us the " greatness " of " our nation " ( they not even say United States ) .
They have many military documentaries , showing how " advanced " they are in killing and destroying , etc .
Unpiloted aircafts had been a recurrent topic for some months last year .
And now you say its the " new secret " .
wtf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi I'm a guy from Argentina, a country in South America.
This entry is an EPIC fail, a biblical fail.
Please!
Our country is a "melting pot", so we have some tv channels in french, protuguese, italian, english, german; and many us channels are either translated or subtiteled.
I am absolutely sure I've already seen this aircraft on "The History Channel".
I dont know if in the US it has the same disgusting ammount of propaganda it has here.
They're pushing the borders of cultural imperialism and everything they broadcast is designed to show us the "greatness" of "our nation" (they not even say United States).
They have many military documentaries, showing how "advanced" they are in killing and destroying, etc.
Unpiloted aircafts had been a recurrent topic for some months last year.
And now you say its the "new secret".
wtf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336632</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260040020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>24+ hour flight is expensive, but not prohibitive for "living pilots" if their bomber can carry extra aircrew.<br>B-52s have flown up to 35 hour missions.</p><p>Pilots can be mass-produced. We have a surplus of military aviators. Piloted AIRFRAMES are the limiting factor.</p><p>UAVs are useful because supporting pilots is expensive, and sending CSAR teams to rescue them is extremely expensive when they get shot down. Downed aircrew are a huge political liability when the public expect no casualties and Hollywood outcomes. Pilots require a huge training and logistics tail that can be shrunk dramatically by taking meat out of the cockpit. Remotely-manned systems need not return if the mission is worth it, and in extreme situations could be deliberately crashed into a target. Unmanned systems need not obey the "G" limits of manned aircraft. Instead of trying to fight while straining against gravity and worrying about not dying a UAV crew can concentrate on the mission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>24 + hour flight is expensive , but not prohibitive for " living pilots " if their bomber can carry extra aircrew.B-52s have flown up to 35 hour missions.Pilots can be mass-produced .
We have a surplus of military aviators .
Piloted AIRFRAMES are the limiting factor.UAVs are useful because supporting pilots is expensive , and sending CSAR teams to rescue them is extremely expensive when they get shot down .
Downed aircrew are a huge political liability when the public expect no casualties and Hollywood outcomes .
Pilots require a huge training and logistics tail that can be shrunk dramatically by taking meat out of the cockpit .
Remotely-manned systems need not return if the mission is worth it , and in extreme situations could be deliberately crashed into a target .
Unmanned systems need not obey the " G " limits of manned aircraft .
Instead of trying to fight while straining against gravity and worrying about not dying a UAV crew can concentrate on the mission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>24+ hour flight is expensive, but not prohibitive for "living pilots" if their bomber can carry extra aircrew.B-52s have flown up to 35 hour missions.Pilots can be mass-produced.
We have a surplus of military aviators.
Piloted AIRFRAMES are the limiting factor.UAVs are useful because supporting pilots is expensive, and sending CSAR teams to rescue them is extremely expensive when they get shot down.
Downed aircrew are a huge political liability when the public expect no casualties and Hollywood outcomes.
Pilots require a huge training and logistics tail that can be shrunk dramatically by taking meat out of the cockpit.
Remotely-manned systems need not return if the mission is worth it, and in extreme situations could be deliberately crashed into a target.
Unmanned systems need not obey the "G" limits of manned aircraft.
Instead of trying to fight while straining against gravity and worrying about not dying a UAV crew can concentrate on the mission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336728</id>
	<title>Re:Old news to me</title>
	<author>ajmilton</author>
	<datestamp>1260040560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is mid-air refueling a "living pilot no-no"? The military's been doing that for years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is mid-air refueling a " living pilot no-no " ?
The military 's been doing that for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is mid-air refueling a "living pilot no-no"?
The military's been doing that for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338290</id>
	<title>Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban??</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1260007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This isn't a leak - it's an official USAF confirmation.</p></div><p>Yeah, but I'm sure that the USAF is well aware of the military and diplomatic implications of confirming this, and they wouldn't have done it if they didn't think it was in their best interests.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a leak - it 's an official USAF confirmation.Yeah , but I 'm sure that the USAF is well aware of the military and diplomatic implications of confirming this , and they would n't have done it if they did n't think it was in their best interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a leak - it's an official USAF confirmation.Yeah, but I'm sure that the USAF is well aware of the military and diplomatic implications of confirming this, and they wouldn't have done it if they didn't think it was in their best interests.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337180</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30341214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30342680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30342598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30342188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30343964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1651208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30341588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30342188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30342680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30342598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30341588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30343964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30341214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30340876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30338744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1651208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30339300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30336370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1651208.30337378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
