Slashdot Mirror

There are 2 problems. Firstly there is the problem is safty and secondly the problem of fuel consumption (which is high, which means it costs passengers more).

From wikipedia "It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given, but that during the grounding of Concorde it became apparent to the airlines that they could actually make more revenue carrying their first class passengers subsonically."

Yes, Gorbachev made lots of noises about reforming the way the performance is measured but of course for him it was impossible task with entrenched interests of people who later become the robber baron oligarchs.. Another good example is nails - They were measured by the output weight, so the factory could easiest meet and exceed the quotas by producing only big honking nails that are not really appropriate for most things you'd want to use nails for in the construction or manufacturing industries. And in more refined products such as, say, buckets, they measured performance in units so it was best for the factory to produce small buckets that were not appropriate for most things you'd want to such thing for!

I believe in essense they wanted a regulated system that'd simulate supply and demand of an open market.. And as the theorists realized the equation cannot work, they naturally decided that the problem is with the people. So enter nonsense about "new socialist man" (or person) who they will educate to behave in a way that makes socialism work.

As for soviet military industry, they actually did have real outside pressure to produce better products that also reacted to what they manufactured. So probably that's why their arms industry is so much better in comparison to the rest of their industry. For example, Israel demonstrated that F-15 can take on much larger enemy air force comprised of Mig-21s and Mig-23s and sweep the skies.. So they came up with Mig-29 and Su-27 that were really ace products in the 70s.

Interestingly when India put interest into fielding Su-30 (essentially upgraded Su-27) it took Sukhoi and the indian arms industry ten years to make decent user-friendly avionics package for it. The pilot's user interface if you like.

here is what they basically started with, user-hostile mess of dials and buttons and controls that are very hard to master - http://www.aeronautics.ru/img002/su30-302-cockpit. jpg

And this is what http://www.ausairpower.net/000-Su-30MKI-Fwd-Cockpi t-1S.jpg it evolved to, eventually.

I suppose the user-friendliness bit didn't really take, they just looked at the performance.

However, if the DPP government stops meddling with cross-strait economy links, it will be Taiwan, not China, who enjoy most of the benefit. Various reports from international research institutes attribute Taiwan's declining economy to DPP's reluctance to embrace the booming Chinese market.

So I'm afraid you've asked the wrong government. It's not the question whether PRC should let go Taiwan, but whether DPP should let go its anti-China stance.

As for the second one, yes, albeit large scale conflict not be very likely soon. But bad things happened in the past. For recent ones, see

The Yinhe Incident, http://www.answers.com/topic/yinhe-incident

The Chinese Embassy Bombing, http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/afm151.htm

Given the US administration's record, Chinese can never trust those neoconservative politicians in Washington. I mean, did Iraq ever threaten any attack to the US in 2003? Has any WMD been found in Iraq at all? Do the Iraqis deserve suffering the consequence of dubya's decision?

Considering that all the 'black boxes' from both aircraft have been located in working order there is a surprising lack of factual information available in the media regarding this extraordinary collision. It has been confirmed that both the Boeing 757-200 and the Tupolev Tu-154M were equipped with the TCAS II air collision avoidance system.

Both aircraft were relatively new (the Tu-154M was, in fact, newer - manufactured in 1995 - than the Boeing cargo jet it collided with) and no reports of any technical problems aboard have surfaced so far. In fact, it has been confirmed by the German investigators that the navigation, flight control and communication equipment aboard both aircraft has been functioning properly.

Available information suggests that both aircraft were piloted by crews with substantial experience flying on international routes and well-familiar with their aircraft. Furthermore, there was no information suggesting that either aircraft has departed from its pre-planned flight path until just second before the collision.

The collision occured at 10.5 km ( 35,000 ft ) altitude with the aircraft approaching each other at a rate of about 240 meters per second ( 793 ft/s ) and a closing angle of 90-deg. The collision occured in the dark and both planes were flying with the headlights turned off, as required by the regulations at this altitude.

Some 45 seconds prior to the collision pilots of the Boeing and Tupolev, still almost 11 km apart, both received commands from their collision avoidance systems to change their altitude: Boeing was to descent and the Tupolev was to gain altitude. However, at the same instant the pilot of the Tupolev received a contradictory order from the air traffic controller (ATC) to descent.

After a few seconds of executing the ascent maneuver, as ordered by the TCAS II, and the second order from the ATC to descent Tu-154M crew decided to follow the ATC instructions instead and begun dropping altitude. At the time of the collision both aircraft were in descent: the Boeing was following TCAS II commands and the Tupolev was following ATC orders.

In the end everything boils down to two questions: why the ATC ordered Tupolev to descent and whether or not the pilot of the Tupolev was obligated to follow the TCAS II instructions instead. There is a significant 'white spot' remaining in this case: almost nothing was released by the investigation regarding the actions of the Boeing pilot and his communications with the ATC.

It crashes if it hits a bit of wreckage that some idiot left on the runway.

OK I found it, it is probably EKIP.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/ekipgal.htm

and yes, there is some truth to those "neonazi" claims.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/baltic_nazi s/latvia/index2.htm/ here it says directly that Waffen-SS remains were allowed, with high country officials present, to march on their day in Latvia. It's not some, it's the whole truth about those nazis. and yes, I lived there as a minority for 10 years, and I hate their nazi attitude.

As I understand cost effectivelly, the Raptor is about $187 million (per jet) (BTW: I got the info by searching Google with "f 22 raptor cost" and the .mil site only, so the return I pulled this quote off of was the dod.mil site = http://www.dod.mil/news/Jul1999/n07301999_9907302. html)

BTW: the info for the Russian jets I would have gotten directly from the sukhoi.ru site, but my Firefox Google translater extension doesn't support Russian/Cyrillic.

Compared even to the experimental MiG 1.42/1.44 "MFI" which is supposedly $70 million per unit, and that is the more expensive experimental MFI. A direct quote from http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/janes008.htm which cites their source as Janes Defense - "With a projected unit cost of $70 million, the MFI (mnogo-funktsonalnyy frontovoy-istrebityel) is now described as a 'flying laboratory', as it is unlikely to be ordered in any quantity. "It is not a commercial programme", says Korzhuyev, "it will be the basis for a new fighter that will be smaller and cheaper, but not worse, than the MFI"."

And that's just the MiG MFI, not including Sukhoi's experimental Su-47 "Berkut" which is supposed to lead to the slightly dumbed down "PAK (something or other I think)" (they are leaving out the forward swept wings, which as I understand Russia discovered just as America did that "marginal manuervablility gained by the foreward swept wings was outweighed by the cost of the automatic computer stability controls"). The experimental Berkut is based on the Su-37, which in-turn is based on the Su-27 Flanker series.

The F-117 that got shot down had less to do with 'tracking our boys with passive radar', and more to do with the fool pilot following the exact same flight path and times a few days in a row, and the SAM site getting lucky.

aeronautics.ru (Venik) is also the mouthpiece for Russian Plasma stealth technology, and conspiracies surrounding the Kusrsk sinking.

The F-117 that got shot down had less to do with 'tracking our boys with passive radar', and more to do with the fool pilot following the exact same flight path and times a few days in a row, and the SAM site getting lucky.

aeronautics.ru (Venik) is also the mouthpiece for Russian Plasma stealth technology, and conspiracies surrounding the Kusrsk sinking.

Yes, it would appear that the Chinese are interested in our stealth technology. For years there have been rumors that our "accidental" bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia was really retaliation for either helping Yugoslavia nail one of our stealth fighters or exchanging information with Yugoslavia about how to track our boys with passive radar.

See...(http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm)

The Russians already had a clone of the Shuttle - the "Buran" - which successfully took off, orbited the earth, and landed without losing a single heat tile.. all unmanned. The project was then scrapped due to lack of further funding.

If they are copying anything here it's not the shuttle, but the next-gen NASA design which is back to a "lauched on the tip of a rocket" type design... but the timing, if anything, more suggests NASA copying Russia rather than vice versa.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/space/russia/rsc e/energia-buran/page_01.htm

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0 153.shtml

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/pics.html

Orbiting mirrors. http://www.aeronautics.ru/mir06.htm http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~browndp/web4d.html

Allow me to rephrase that for you:

Modern AMERICAN helicopters are just too small...

How big is a T-Rex thighbone exactly?

Its nice to see that the ACLU has decided to protect my 5 year olds right to surf the net and enjoy the pron pop ups the these unethical perverts want to send.

It's nice to see that you prefer to let Witch-finder General Ashcroft into my computer and my bedroom rather than take responsibility to raise your own child.

Are you such a bad parent that you think a nanny-State can do a better job?

Your five year-old daughter might well be shocked by seeing porn on your computer; but I wager she'd be wakened by screaming nightmares for a month if she saw these pictures of the results of the Nazi Holocaust. (Note that two of the pictures, including the one of the emaciated children your daughter's age who were subjected to medical "experiments", are served up by a Florida public school system.)

Should we remove those pictures from the Internet to protect your daughter? Turn the Holocaust survivors' "never again" into "never again seen"?

What about pictures of Pol Pot's Killing Fields?

Will throwing those pictures down the memory hole make your job as parent any easier?

What about sanitizing inconvenient pictures of America's Iraq War?

Is you daughter too young for those pictures of her country's "accomplishments"? Shall we censor them too?

Or maybe it's a better idea you sit with your five-year old while she browses the internet?

Are referring to this? First, trying to get a prop plane to go the speed of sound is something I don't want to try anytime soon. IIRC, you start encoutering problems with the blades and shockwaves. No thank you. Also, that aircraft is fairly tiny. Lastly, it's amazing that the government keeps pushing that plane through testing considering how many accidents in testing that have occured and killed US soldiers. Not too mention the aircraft has had quite a lengthy development cycle.

[The T-60S] supposedly deployed secretly in 2003.

The phrase you're looking for is "originally intended to enter service in 2003", not "supposedly deployed secretly in 2003. But fair enough, if the T60-S does exist it would be interesting to get the details of its construction. However, it seems like it's been cancelled -- there's much speculation on this page.

[Topol-M and Sunburn] are only good for a direct confronation with the U.S.

Huh? The Topol-M i can sort-of understand but the Sunburn will destroy any ship it hits, no matter where the target was built.

I haven't heard of the U.S developing any cavitating torpeodes

Maybe you should check out This link then.

for which there are no effective countermeasures yet.

There seems to be no effective super-cavitating weapons deployed yet either, so countermeasures might be a moot point.

Ever heard of the Ka-52?

Kazys Ciurinskas, a former member of the Lithuanian SS division accused of killing Russian and Lithuanian Jews and POWs, lived in Indiana since the end of the war. Ciurinskas collected a $540 monthly pension from the German government since 1960 while living in the US and being a US citizen. In a 1995-97 United States of America v. Kazys Ciurinskas case the US District Court in Indiana stripped Ciurinskas of US citizenship.

Interestingly, the amount of the pension paid to these former SS by the German government varies based on their final rank in the SS -- higher ranks get a bigger pension. Only recently -- and only after international pressure -- did the German government modify its pension law to strip the pension from war criminals, and even so, there is no requirement that any investigation be made of recipients, nor is there any mechanism to do so, so even known war criminals can continue to collect payments from the German government.

Ironically, some war criminals even receive, in addition to their normal pensions what are called "victim's" pensions -- including those believed to have massacred American soldiers. The following was written in 1997, and thus may be slightly out of date:

The well-respected German military historian Gerhard Schreiber estimates the number of war criminals receiving these extra payments from the German government at 50,000. Wolfgang Lehnigk-Emden, from Ochtendung near Koblenz, is one of the "victims." According to a German federal court, Lehnigk-Emden killed 15 unarmed women and children in Caiazzo near Naples in Italy in October 1943. Because Lehnigk-Emden was later injured (shot in the leg) while trying to escape from an allied POW camp and suffers a mild handicap, he receives an additional "victim" pension.

Another current recipient of victim pensions is the former SS Hauptsturm-fuhrer Wilhelm Mohnke. Mohnke, who was a close confidant of Adolf Hitler and commandant of the "Fuhrerbunker" in Berlin during Hitler's last days. According to the US Department of Justice "there is very substantial evidence pointing to Wilhelm Mohnke's personal involvement in the perpetration of Nazi war crimes" -- for his role in the massacre of 72 American POWs in 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge.

At the same time that Germany provides monthly pension payments to former members of the SS and war criminals, persons forced to be slave laborers for the Nazi regime get far less:

[U]nder an agreement... brokered by the U.S. and German governments, however, survivors of slave labor under the Nazis will be awarded only $790 each for back pay and a lump sum of $7,894 each in recognition of the 55-year delay. Those who were exploited as "forced labor," such as Nazi prisoners working in agriculture, will get a mere $5,000 each.

So, frankly, any Old Folks (Pensioner's) Home in Germany should provide you with plenty of "original Nazis", living comfortably thanks to the largess of the current German government, while their victims -- those who survived at all, those who haven't died while waiting for their reparations -- continue to suffer.

(Of course, I will now be modded down as an anti-German racist, becaus

In other words, for what bidders are offering right now for this aircraft, you could get a brand spanking new Hornet from Boeing, and have nearly $40 million in change. That's a lot of jet fuel, and a lot of flying time (not taking into account maintenance costs).

As for me, if I had that sort of money, and wanted to buy an aircraft, I'd probably be looking at one of Boeing's commercial jets. $100 million would just about buy me a 767. I'd prefer a 747 -- it has greater range -- but a 767-200ER could just about get me from Sydney to Los Angeles. Hellaciously expensive to run, of course, but if you're able to afford one of these babies, you should be able to afford the fuel and maintenance...

Brainstormed back in the day? The Russians built it, and it does work.

In comparision to the F14 Tomcat the Su33 has more power on take off. While it is not assisted by a catapault the Su33 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and also, due to better aerodynamics, generates more lift. Flaperons were replaced with slotted high lift flaps to increase lift and control at low speeds. Comments from US Naval aviators who visited the Kuznetsov about the Su33 consistantly praised their ability to climb immediately after launch instead of 'hanging' in the air like their catapault launched aircraft.

The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)

Fighter Tactics Academy Strike Flanker page:

"...The Su-32"FN" has 12 armament/store stations and can carry the entire inventory of standoff weapons as well as up to four air-to-air missiles. The total weight for armament comes out to around 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) with a flight range of around 4,000 km (2,160 nm), increased up to 7,000 km (3,777 nm) with in-flight refueling. It is noteworthy to mention that the Su-32"FN" can carry and employ the UPAZ air refueling store, so one Su-32 could refuel from another. External wing-tip mounted Sorbtsya ECM pods can also be carried.

One of the most fascinating features about the Su-32"FN" is its large side-by-side crew station that contains the left co

In comparision to the F14 Tomcat the Su33 has more power on take off. While it is not assisted by a catapault the Su33 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and also, due to better aerodynamics, generates more lift. Flaperons were replaced with slotted high lift flaps to increase lift and control at low speeds. Comments from US Naval aviators who visited the Kuznetsov about the Su33 consistantly praised their ability to climb immediately after launch instead of 'hanging' in the air like their catapault launched aircraft.

The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)

Fighter Tactics Academy Strike Flanker page:

"...The Su-32"FN" has 12 armament/store stations and can carry the entire inventory of standoff weapons as well as up to four air-to-air missiles. The total weight for armament comes out to around 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) with a flight range of around 4,000 km (2,160 nm), increased up to 7,000 km (3,777 nm) with in-flight refueling. It is noteworthy to mention that the Su-32"FN" can carry and employ the UPAZ air refueling store, so one Su-32 could refuel from another. External wing-tip mounted Sorbtsya ECM pods can also be carried.

One of the most fascinating features about the Su-32"FN" is its large side-by-side crew station that contains the left command-pilot and right navigator-armament operator's stations. It is a fully pressurized

When I am reading the "war news" now, I take the very highs and the very lows from all the sources, and throw them away, then average the middle, that is most likely the closest to any sort of "truth" being reported.

Actually I've found the daily summary from The russian intel guys to be quite objective, seeing as they aren't "Allies" to anyone in particular in this skirmish. Seem to have the most rational viewpoint so far as opposed to all the media hyperbole.

Kuro5hin has an article on Russian news reports derived from intercepted coalition communication. They even tell you how to do it and where to buy the equipment.

I'm really saddened by the recklessness of the Bush administration, endangering not only Iraqi civilians, but also British and American troops.

Kuro5hin has an article on Russian news reports derived from intercepted coalition communication. They even tell you how to do it and where to buy the equipment.

I'm really saddened by the recklessness of the Bush administration, endangering not only Iraqi civilians, but also British and American troops.

http://www.landfield.com/isn/mail-archive/2001/Jun /0099.html http://www.landfield.com/isn/mail-archive/2001/Jun /0099.html

There is more information here on the Czech "Tamara" anti-stealth radar, which apparently the Iraqis were set to buy in November 1997.

In case anyone is interested, here is a link to a page which describes the effects of HPM and EMP weapons on electronic equipment: http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/awst002.htm

It's /.'d already so I have no idea what the application for this plane is but I suspect military based on the secrecy of the project. That said, most new govt built planes have a few shared characteristics. The most relevant here is they are fly by wire since they posses the aerodynamics of rocks. The F177a stealth F/B is a great example of a plane that could not fly without the intervention of a computer to make thousands of adjustments a second. In this case the design was for the stealth capabilities but also the F16/18's are not terribly aerodynamic either and have low wing thickness. As a result of these aerodynamic features the stall speed is very high and requires thrust in most circumstances. I do not pretend to understand this fully but apparently these aerodynamic "features" (in this case not a codeword for bug...) allow for amazing manuevuers such as the Mig29's 45 angle of attack. see here and here and it's ability to do a tail-slide (when the nose is actually behind the tail while the plane is moving forward or graphically like this \ moving > slightly) This was performed at a show in 1998 (see here)

Plasma stealth isn't a rumor. It's even been reported on by Jane's.

Take a look at this Russian aeronautics article:here

The super flanker looks impressive!

Lasers are common in the military, primarily for range finding and illuminating targets for laser-guided weapons. Although these lasers are not powerful enough to destroy objects, they can cause serious eye damage. In at least one case they were used by a Russian ship in American waters to damage the eyes of a helicopter pilot observing the vessel.

Also, the US Armed Forces have researched this issue extensively, and most aircrew helmets and visors are now designed to protect the wearer from laser-induced eye damage - accidental or otherwise.

Theres quite a few links about it. This plasma thing is not that hard to do. It is definitely less technoligically advanced than scramjets. Also, SCRAMJETS would probably use plasma drag reduction too. It is not that hard to do. Plasma shieding can be accomplished with a glorified welder's plasma torch.

Links:
Sandia article
This article provides some good info on plasma drag reduction as well as other hypersonic aircraft subjects.
A Russian plasma page.

This sub is boring!

i prefer this one!

Which aircraft? C131/C5/C17's? Good luck in convincing the USAF to lend you one, they are waaay overtasked already.

The Russians have some huge ex-military transport planes that they rent out for large payloads.

• Sukhoi S-21 Supersonic Business Jet
• Dassault Supersonic Business Jet
• AeroWorldNet(tm) article from last year
• copy of N.Y. Times 2001-06-06 story here

A couple of interesting references are this article where they basically experiment with using a household fluroscent tube as an HF antenna. Or page where a few more references are given.

I have to ask myself with all of this though, what the point of having an radar invisible antenna, that is optically highly visible. I have visions of fluro lit battlefields... D.