Slashdot Mirror

It's more or less a PowerPC G4 right down to the Firewire bus.

Components were billed as "COTS". However those chips were still back when they were Motorola/Freescale

The system departed from the historical use of low speed Mil-Std-1553B busses, using the high speed Fibre Channel-Avionics Environment (FC-AE) serial bus for high speed internal interconnects.

built around PowerPC RISC processors - essentially a bigger and faster cousin to the 6U VME packaged PowerPC processors now being used in F-15E, F/A-18E/F and F-111C Block C-4.

"So we have designed for technology refresh, so at the appropriate time we can stop putting in the 1 GHz processor board and swap out to the 2 GHz board without having to go back and do any redesign. We were once required to use a MIL-STD-1760 processor with Ada or other military languages; now we use commercial PowerPC with C++."

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA...

https://www.militaryaerospace....

The Eurofighter is ok, but nothing really special. Here is a 3rd party assessment. It's maybe have as good as an F-22, and you could do as well as a Eurofighter with an avionics upgrade to the F-15. So the question isn't why the US suffers from NIH, but why Europe does.

> Simply best not to reveal it, given nobody can be trusted

Absolutely, and what one company who lost a lot due to thefts did was simply refuse the DSTO physical access to their facilities. But under the DTCA they can no longer do that; they *must* let them in, give access, office space, etc. Defence can also issue a company with an order to turn over IP. Penalties for refusing are fines and jail time.

In the US the Economic Espionage Act is actually quite strong legislation for protecting trade secrets. Again, in Australia there is no such legislation, so you must really keep your cards close to your chest. Again, under the DTCA you can no longer do that. If you want to not just sell, but even communicate about your work (e.g. communicate with a peer, brainstorm a problem, ask a supplier a question) you must get a permit, so you can no longer keep it secret. Defence don't have (for want of a better word) "Chinese Walls". As soon as a scientist finishes looking at your product - even under a non-disclosure, they are free to do research in the same area.

This paper has a good analysis of the flaws with the DTCA permit system: http://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/APA-DP-2013-0801.pdf

Not a single story about the deadly Chinese cruise missile passes the smell test.

The Australians seem to believe otherwise.

The PLA is a major user of cruise missile technology, and China both manufactures and exports a wide range of cruise missiles in all categories.

The PLA's preoccupation with cruise missiles reflects the historical reality that until the advent of the modern Su-30MKK/MK2 and FH-7 fighters, China lacked aircraft capable of penetrating any defences.

China's first generation of cruise missiles were based on the Soviet Styx, and derivatives of this 1950s design remain in production. More recent Chinese designs are modelled on the Western Exocet, Harpoon and Tomahawk families of missiles.

In addition to domestically built cruise missiles, China also operates the imported Russian supersonic 3M80E Moskit / SS-N-22 Sunburn, and the 3M54/3M14 Klub/Kalibr / SS-N-27 Sizzler missiles.

Smells to me like the Chinese are heavily invested in something that "doesn't pass the smell test."

The world (especially voters and politicians) believe in nutjob armageddon/rapture bullshit and are hell-bent on making sure it happens as soon as possible

Let me help you out there -

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, AKA the Soviet Union, governed by the religion suppressing atheistic Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" operated according to the "scientific principles" of Marxist-Leninism, built an actual Doomsday weapon, that is still active: Soviet Doomsday Device Still Armed and Ready and Inside the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine.. Apparently secular socialist progressive totalitarians are just as crazy as anyone else. Salud.

Related: Moscow arms against nuclear attack

Nearly 5,000 new emergency bomb shelters will be built in Moscow by 2012 to save people in case of potential attacks.

Out of sight but not out of mind

William Burrows’ classic 1986 book about satellite reconnaissance, Deep Black, opened with a vivid scene of retired US Air Force Major General George Keegan recounting how in the early 1970s he had become obsessed with Soviet civil defense preparedness. As head of Air Force intelligence, Keegan had ordered his junior officers to gather all the satellite photography that they could of Soviet underground shelter building. Eventually he compiled a massive amount of data indicating—he claimed—that virtually every large apartment building erected in the Soviet Union since 1955 included a fallout shelter, factories had underground bunkers, and there were “seventy-five huge underground command posts.” A few of these underground facilities housed command centers for the Strategic Rocket Forces and were buried in the Ural Mountains. In particular, Yamantau Mountain (“Evil Mountain” in the local Bashkir language) and Kosvinsky Mountain were considered to be the Soviet equivalents to Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado, home to NORAD (not to mention the W.O.P.R. and the Stargate).

Shelters part of long-term civil defense plan - Shanghai leaders stress the date of 2012 is purely a coincidence
Assessing PLA Underground Air Basing Capability

Bunkers for all

Switzerland is unique in having enough nuclear fallout shelters to accommodate its entire population, should they ever be needed.

IKEA in Hell - The interior design of Sweden’s giant nuclear bunker.

Israeli leaders spend day in 'Nation's Tunnel' nuclear bunker

The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at

...but for those who say the threat "isn't there", I guess this is just a figment of the imagination then?

It's just dick-waving by people who shouldn't even be in power (the F22 as well).

The chances of a real war against one of those is zero. The F22 is a waste of time, and especially a waste of money. Get over it, team America (fuck yeah!).

...but for those who say the threat "isn't there", I guess this is just a figment of the imagination then? And they certainly didn't have any "help"...

Oh, I know, China isn't a "threat". The fact that it's on track to exceed US military spending by 2025 must be for "peaceful regional defense". This isn't really happening.

What about the F-35? Oh, yeah — that, too.

F-15 Eagles still have never been defeated in combat

F-15s never fought against Su-30s outside of war games. Try selling F-15s to Australia.

Air Power Australia has excellent coverage of the J-20.

Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype: A Preliminary Assessment
J-20 Stealth Fighter: China's First Strike Weapon

And if you want to know why scrapping the F-22 was a bad idea and why the F-35 won't cut it in future conflicts, read this: Surviving the Modern
Integrated Air Defence System

Air Power Australia has excellent coverage of the J-20.

Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype: A Preliminary Assessment
J-20 Stealth Fighter: China's First Strike Weapon

And if you want to know why scrapping the F-22 was a bad idea and why the F-35 won't cut it in future conflicts, read this: Surviving the Modern
Integrated Air Defence System

Air Power Australia has excellent coverage of the J-20.

Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype: A Preliminary Assessment
J-20 Stealth Fighter: China's First Strike Weapon

And if you want to know why scrapping the F-22 was a bad idea and why the F-35 won't cut it in future conflicts, read this: Surviving the Modern
Integrated Air Defence System

The 117 is old hat, and was never all that stealthy.

The new Chinese J20 fighter reported recently is based on features found on much later US and Russian designs, and bears little resemblance to the F117.

Technology stolen would probably include anti-radar coatings and perhaps engine and avionics.

The J20 is simply too big to be very stealthy.

Then you want these:
http://www.i-glassesstore.com/i-glasses-i3pc.html
800x600!

Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that in 1992 (yes, that's 17 years ago) you could buy the Virtual-IO I-Glasses for $900, and they were 320x240 (claimed 640x480 with scan line interpolation).

Apparently, 17 years is exactly enough time to increase the resolution from 320x240 to 800x600. Hm.

Some articles (from 1998) would claim that defect density is the main problem in high resolution LARGE displays:

from: http://www.ausairpower.net/OSR-0398.html
"
As is evident, the high cost of current AM TFT LCD panels is a direct result of very complex fabrication processes, which may produce often poor batch yields. The bigger the panel and its number of pixels, the greater the odds that a processing defect will occur rendering a pixel or row/column of pixels dead and thus resulting in an expensive and useless reject.
"

So... would the logic then extend to smaller LCD panels being EASIER to make in higher resolutions? It seems reasonable. However, if that's the case, why isn't the market full of high resolution small LCD panels that can be used to make these $900 into $100 units that everyone could be using instead of massive LCD monitors?

Lets take a look at Australia. This website: http://www.ausairpower.net/ is pretty much devoted to the argument that F-35s will not be effective against the crop of Russian Imports that are appearing in their part of the world.

Australia will be flying F-35s after their A model '18s are replaced. I think it is safe to say that the latest Sukhoi product is at least a match to the earlier generation F-15 which was put into production in the 70s (First Flight 1972) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle)

LOL... Haven't seen too many bomb craters, huh?

In Iraq I worked out of hardened aircraft shelters that the yugoslavians built for saddam in the 80's. I have pics but none of the are online... OK here's one from google.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Balad-AFB-HAS-2S.jpg

The round satellite dish on top is ~15 feet tall, for perspective. The entire structure is concrete reinforced (And I mean reinforced as in 2-inch steel bar set 2 inches apart in layers 12 inches apart, and all welded).

So on the inside you're looking up at 30-45 feet of armor depending on where you stand (the ceilings are vaulted). When we invaded, we dropped one penetrator per shelter, completely destroying everything inside (airplanes), and leaving a nice round ten-feet diameter hole through all that expensive armor.

That was done with 2000 lb bombs. These bad boys right here:
http://www.centaf.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/011022-F-2034C-010.jpg

A shelter could survive 200 feet underground from a air- or surface-burst nuke. That's why we build penetrators to take us down to 200 feet, and more specifically penetrators with conventional charges so we can test them without violating treaties. The people who build these things are very good at what they do.

-b

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.

JSF is wholly unsuited to our (Australias) strategic requirements.
If anyone in canberra would pull their heads out of eachothers arses long enough to listen to the experts they'd keep the F111's flying for a few more years and buy F22's instead for when the time comes to retire the F18's and F111's

Some interesting articles and papers with comparisons are available at http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

The F18's here are having to have total center barrel replacements - mostly because we've used them for roles where the US uses F16/15's. Good case of using the wrong tool for the job.

The F18's precision bombing ability has only been a recent addition in -our- fleet. Perhaps you guys got some better stuff first up.

The F18 has insufficient range, speed or strike power to make it ideally practical here in AUSTRALIA. A little different no doubt in the US.

The F18 isn't really suited for independent action across our gulf to areas such as Indonesia, even more so now with our "opponents" having purchased the Sukhoi's

The JSF, with about 2000km (vs F111's 6000km) range falls a bit short too. We're a big and SPARSELY populated country here and we don't have the budget to realistically put a nice squadron of JSF's at every bay.

Basically, Australia is trading its independence ability in and leaning more on the US to support us in the military role.

Mostly, I'd say it's more a case perhaps of politics causing poor choices, than the planes themselves being implicitly bad.

Feel free to browse over - http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-FAQ-2005.html

Mainly political reasons, those in charge want the JSF to replace both the F-111 and the F-18 (since the JSF will be a new, shiny toy to play with).

A more in depth look at the issue is covered here http://www.ausairpower.net/.

What are the limitations of aircraft compared to satellites ? The first and foremost, is that they are quite limited in footprint and if we set a 20 degree ground station elevation angle as a limit, can reach out to a distance of about three times their operating altitude. To cover a radius of 100 km the aircraft needs to be at about 100,000 ft altitude. At a 50-60 km radius we get an altitude of about 50,000-60,000 ft, which is the domain in which the HALO and DARPA ACN systems are intended to operate.