Slashdot Mirror
The Pentagon's Supersonic, Shape-Shifting Assassin
grammar fascist writes "CNN reports that Northrop Grumman is under contract to build a new supersonic, shape-shifting bomber by 2020. The main innovation is in its single, rotating wing. From the article: '[It] will cruise with its 200-foot-long wing perpendicular to its engines like a normal airplane. But just before the craft breaks the sound barrier, its single wing will swivel around 60 degrees (hence the name) so that one end points forward and the other back. This oblique configuration redistributes the shock waves that pile up in front of a plane at Mach speeds and cause drag. When the Switchblade returns to subsonic speeds, the wing will rotate back to perpendicular.'"
So, having one part of the plane change its angle is now shape shifting? WOW. My laptop is a shapeshifter, because the lid opens. My car must be a shape shifter too, the sunroof can take several positions!
Go America! Fuck Yeah!
The reason it's hard is that now all the control moments are linked -- you can't roll the plane without causing pitch and yaw changes too. So you need to control all the surfaces in unison. This makes it complicated and hard to fly, but not necessarilly unstable. That's why there's a computer flying it, not a person -- once they get a good model of how it behaves, applying all the corrections at once isn't a hard thing for a computer.
Seastead this.
I recall seeing a NASA test plane with a swiveling wing at the EAA OSHKOSH airshow back in the early 80's. It was one place, jet powered, and was flown in the airshow with the wing rotated to a fairly steep angle several times. It was a proof of concept to explore control issues and to prove that the wing need not be swept BACK on both sides to improve aerodynamics at high speeds. They referred to is as the AD-1", an oblique wing aircraft.
--
We don't need no stinkin' sig!
Here is a link to the NASA page on the AD-1
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Britain - 5.1% Portugal - 4.3% Denmark - 4.2% Ireland - 4.2% Austria - 3.9% Luxembourg - 2.6 Netherlands - 2.4
How about adding an option to post as an ignorant math-challenged fascist instead? 4.6 is nowhere near half of 5.1.
As a side note, France and Germany have higher reported unemployment because they don't count part-time minimum wage jobs. HTFH.
While projects like this can easily be seen as waste, they do a couple things.
This money goes to create hi tech jobs, rewarding people for getting engineering/science/sometimes computing degrees, potentially supporting universities themselves.
These projects generate knowledge by testing out technologies and supporting businesses or universities that sponsor research.
In my opinion, this is not waste, even if the end product never comes to be.
Certainly, this can only go so far, you wouldn't want all your money going to high tech / low success projects, but it is reasonable to have money going towards these things.
What's so inflammatory about it? I mean what do you think this thing's supposed to do, fly in at supersonic speeds to deliver a payload of Snickers bars to satisfy the hunger of the enemy?
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
With the upgrades done over the years, it still the the best carrier fighter we have.
With the upgrades done over the years, it still the the best carrier fighter we don't have.
Fixed that for ya. They've been decomissioned since March.
It has range, computer power, ability to lock onto six different targets at the same time and shoot them all down, and doesn't need to be pointed at the bogeys after the missles are fired. The F-18 Hornet is a short range fighter, and has to keep itself pointed in the general direction of the bogeys until the missles hit.
Incorrect, to my knowledge. Fire-and-forget is based on the weaponry, not the platform firing it. Just about every air-to-air weapon - the only exception being the AIM-7 Sparrow, which is being phased out for the AMRAAM - the F/A-18 launches is fire-and-forget and doesn't require external guidance from the launching aircraft. It can carry more payload, too, if Wikipedia is to be believed.
"If you don't have eyes you shouldn't have wings" -- Carl Pilkington
The thing that the military adds to R&D that academia lacks is urgency. The military responds to a threat, or a perceived threat. Academia can spend generations arguing the same theories to death.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
Except that it's false to say "Americans can afford to drive SUVs." What you really mean -- unless you intend to deceive people -- is that SOME Americans can afford to drive SUVs. Many others (thirty-eight million Americans) have "insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health" (Figures from the Census Bureau, definition quoted from the Orshansky Thresholds used thereby).
I think there are fewer than thirty-eight million SUV drivers in the United States. If I'm right, then from a purely quantitative perspective, the Swedes have a better standard of living than a purely capitalist United States would have.
WOuldn't it be more efficient to take the war out of it and spend the money on pure R&D?
R&D is Research & DEVELOPMENT. You have to build something when you are done otherwise it is not R&D, it is just R. It is also not R&D&War.
Better yet why not just provide incentives for private enterprise to do R&D and give the money back to the taxpayers?
Well other than the giving money back part, the US government does this all the time.
How about R&D through the space program?
Have you ever heard of NASA?
Wouln't that be better then making new bombers to drop bombs on miami on a band of al-quada sypathisers?
Please use facts when making an argument. This is just a dumb statement that shows you have no good points to argue.
Slashdot +1 funny -4 Insightful +1 informative -2 Redundant
Karma: Somewhere between SCO and Microsoft
Then regular people like yourself need to open their eyes.
We could spend much less than we do now and defend our nation from any "real" threat- that is true- but most of our military spending is not to defend us from threats. The U.S. spends so much on the armed forces for the same reason that at one point the U.S.S.R had enough nukes to destroy the entire planet a few times over- we want to make the idea of (a major nation) going against us in any significant way (as in more than "we don't support what you are doing") a horrifying thought. We want to have so much power that the rest of the world is FORCED to follow our lead or pay the price for getting in front.
China and India have over a billion people each. The economic force of such numbers mean that realistically THEY should be the superpowers, not us. But they (in my lifetime) will not dare challenge the authority of the U.S. because they know that we have a millitary that can take them back to the stone ages if they cross us. Because of our military, we get access to cheaper and more resources than they do (Iraq oil anyone?) Because of our military, we will stay on top of the world long after when we should no longer be.
There is also that whole "military spending leads to domestic jobs" thing as well.
Open Source Sushi
As a Finn I was just wondering, at what time where you in sweden?
;-)
Because when Wartburg was a popular car in Finland, it would date to 1950s, that would make you a really old slashdotter. Mayby you are mixing Wartburg with Lada? Lada was a soviet made car which was also imported to Finland, but it was never popular, and if you mixed those two, then it would date you to 1980s.
Thought, you are quite right about the fact that having and driving a car in both Sweden and Finland is very expensive, but that's because the car taxes double the cars price and gasolines price, which btw. is just right, because personal driving is expensive to goverment (roads) and to enviroment (polution) and thus taxes should be taken to compensate those costs. Now days there thought is talk about moving to strictly taxing gasoline, and not cars, that would be logical, and it would make people think more about having a own car when a liter would cost from 2 to 3. The reason why americans are driving SUVs is because US goverment is subsidizing personal driving, by not taxing car owners the cost that are associated with using cars.
On a note, I too think that scandinavian countries tax too much, and there is too much goverment control, our unemployment rate is too high, and the official numbers are cleaned by putting people in to education and to early pension. Thought, I think that american system isn't the answer, thought it has some good points, the society should take care of it's weaks and unfortunates, and provide a minimum level of living, that is the only way in which we can say that everybody is in the same line in life and that people try and take risk in their lifes, without worrying ending up in the street.
PS. The most popular car in Finland in now days is Toyota, same too in america, or it will be soon
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
Your statement is correct as far as it goes, but what you've failed to realize is that "the current group of fanatics" is not a fixed set of people. Like the particles of water vapor that form a cloud, there are constantly individuals entering and leaving the "set of fanatics", and its appearance as a fixed object is an illusion. Like a cloud, its size will grow or shrink depending on the environment around it. Which is why so much of the USA's recent actions have been not only ineffective but counterproductive: if a military operation kills N terrorists, but inspires (more than N) people who were previously non-combatants to become terrorists, then our effort in that operation has actually harmed us more than doing nothing would have.
The "War On Terror" is not some video game where you can win simply by killing until there are no 'baddies' to kill. It is a political struggle for the hearts and minds of humanity. The terrorists know this, and use it to their advantage. It's time we did the same. When the bulk of the world can't tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys" anymore, the terrorists are winning.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.