Slashdot Mirror
When Looks Can Kill
Ben Sullivan writes "From the Los Angeles Times: "Test pilots here are flying with sophisticated helmets, resembling a bug's eye, that allow them to aim their weapons and sensors simply by looking at potential targets on the ground or in the air. The helmets, when coupled with a highly maneuverable new missile that is close to deployment, would enable fighter pilots to look over their shoulders and fire instantly at targets, a feat that until now has been matched only in science fiction movies."
Development was done by San Jose-based Vision Systems International, a joint venture of defense electronics maker Rockwell Collins Inc. and Israeli's Elbit. Raytheon makes the sharp-turning AIM-9X missile."
While this would definitely be faster, maybe more accurate...if all you have to do is LOOK at something to blow it up, might not the chances for friendly fire or other accidents be increased? What else does a pilot have to do to mark and/or fire at their target?
Could the US do more? Sure. If someone defeats the US with superior firepower, will they do better? Not a chance. Power acquired though violent means is rarely employed for the good of the majority.
I would prefer to see the US retain its abililty to defend itself against aggressors. If the US is defeated in war, the victor is not likely to be someone who does a better job fighting the "very serious problems of disease, starvation, and poverty." If that matters to you, you should be glad for the United States' military superiority.
We have superiority today, but if we stop developing bigger, better, badder weapons, that will change. Superiority is a process, not a result.
Build stuff. Stuff that walks, stuff that rolls, whatever.
The problem with swiveling your launch rails is that the airstream does not swivel too. When your aircraft is flying 500 knots, and you try to turn your missile to, say, 90 degrees off the heading angle and launch the missile, the missile will immediately begin tumbling and be utterly uncontrollable. You might be able to make a missile that could be launched successfully at 90 degrees, but that design would not work for 120 degrees. Or zero degrees.
In other words, I would argue that your conclusion is erroneous. Making a missile turn tightly is accomplished with thrust vectoring and other clever aerodynamic tricks. Doing as you suggest would take, well, antigravity, I think. : )
In order to successfully design a high-speed aircraft, it's very important to know which direction it is going to fly. There are, to date, exactly zero exceptions to this rule.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Yes its difficult to control, but its doable.
Thrust vectoring is OK as an approach, fairly old hat. However there are some problems with it in complexity/lifetime terms.
The question is not so much what this story is about - this is all fairly old stuff. The question is third party datalinking, high data rate sensors, and high speed terminal manoever.
And as has been said elsewhere, getting those dammed pilots out of the cockpit and on the ground where they belong.
Well, the North Vietnamese for one. After the US pulled out their support for South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese invaded with more tanks and troops than the Germans used to knock over Poland. The South Vietnamese soldiers ran out of ammo and gernades. Sounds like a "conventional war" to me.
spasm also wrote: all that counts is whose political aims get furthered by the killing
I agree. While I may not agree with most (Hell, 90%) of what my congresscritters say, do, and legislate, I'd still prefer them to any murderous thug that gets what he wants by equipping a bunch of starving teenagers with AK-47's. The old adage about "democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the other ones" definitely applies. Thus I *personally* would prefer the political aims of the US of A; that way, I can hope that we deliver food as well as bombs, and funds to rebuild after the fighting has died down.
As for Vietnam, they won the war by sapping America's williningness to fight. Relative military strength obviously doesn't mean ability to wage war. A nation's strengths and weaknesses don't always show up on a battlefield.
As another poster mentioned, the Palestinians are targeting civilians because they can't fight the military. In fact, they can't even keep the IDF out of their strongholds; a fact not lost on radical Israelis. Several "ultra-right-wing" factions in that tragic land are interested in performing a little "ethnic clensing". If they wanted to, don't you think that all of those tanks, planes, and helicopter gunships would do a terrific job of killing defenseless civilians? One way of getting rid of cockroaches is to burn your house down.
Of COURSE military power has limits, which can be expoited by an intelligent enemy. However, if one side refuses to play the game by "the rules", what keeps the other side from "cheating" as well? And, if you're going to cheat, it certainly helps to start from a position of superior military strength.