Slashdot Mirror


Iran Builds Mock-up of Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carrier

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "The NYT reports that US intelligence analysts studying satellite photos of Iranian military installations say that Iran is building a mock-up of an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with the same distinctive shape and style of the Navy's Nimitz-class carriers, as well as the Nimitz's number 68 neatly painted in white near the bow. Mock aircraft can be seen on the flight deck. The mock-up, which American officials described as more like a barge than a warship, has no nuclear propulsion system and is only about two-thirds the length of a typical 1,100-foot-long Navy carrier. Intelligence officials do not believe that Iran is capable of building an actual aircraft carrier. "Based on our observations, this is not a functioning aircraft carrier; it's a large barge built to look like an aircraft carrier," says Cmdr. Jason Salata. "We're not sure what Iran hopes to gain by building this. If it is a big propaganda piece, to what end?" Navy intelligence analysts surmise that the vessel, which Fifth Fleet wags have nicknamed the Target Barge, is something that Iran could tow to sea, anchor and blow up — while filming the whole thing to make a propaganda point, if, say, the talks with the Western powers over Iran's nuclear program go south. "It is not surprising that Iranian military forces might use a variety of tactics — including military deception tactics — to strategically communicate and possibly demonstrate their resolve in the region," said an American official who has closely followed the construction of the mock-up. The story has set off chatter about how weird and dumb Iran is for building this giant toy boat but according to Marcy Wheeler if you compare Iran's barge with America's troubled F-35 program you end up with an even bigger propaganda prop. "I'm not all that sure what distinguishes the F-35 except the cost: Surely Iran hasn't spent the equivalent of a trillion dollars — which is what we'll spend on the F-35 when it's all said and done — to build its fake boat," writes Wheeler. "So which country is crazier: Iran, for building a fake boat, or the US for funding a never-ending jet program?""

298 comments

  1. mockup schmockup by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Funny

    I had one of those. Don't remember if it was Airfix, Tamiya or Revell...

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:mockup schmockup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had one of those. Don't remember if it was Airfix, Tamiya or Revell...

      Whichever it was, rest assured that nobody cares.

    2. Re:mockup schmockup by JustOK · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's no way to talk about a model citizen

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:mockup schmockup by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but this is more what came to mind for me:

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EAf7...

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    4. Re:mockup schmockup by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Dey took er JERBS!

    5. Re:mockup schmockup by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Lego?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:mockup schmockup by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I built a lego one at some point (though they lack the romance of big-gun ships IMHO) but it wouldn't have been much over 4 feet long[1], I didn't have that many bricks.

      It would have been a WW2 type straight deck one too, slanted bricks weren't available then and it would have been awfully steppy without them..

      And about as much use as this thing the Iranians have built, which someone above failed to grok.

      [1] This is a guess. At first I thought maybe 6 feet, but I'm a bit taller now than I was then.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re: mockup schmockup by leslie.satenstein · · Score: 1

      The mockup is probably an investigative tool to use to determine where the best place to hit the actual carrier in order to do the most damage. Probably where all the ammo is storred or where the carrier could easily be crippled, I.e. sunk.

  2. Iran. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iran is crazier.

  3. F-35 is not just American by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    By why cloud a good jab at the US with facts?

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:F-35 is not just American by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Persuading some other countries to spend money on it doesn't make it un-American.

      It's America's idea, they're footing 90-odd percent of the bill and it's fast becoming a trillion-dollar white elephant (Drones! Who could have predicted those?).

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:F-35 is not just American by jeff13 · · Score: 1

      Because the F-35 is, I shit you not, IS, an American plane. That's a fact.

      Wow, you just had to completely fuck that up in your head and then post it on one of the most read tech sites in the world. You are just fabulously fucking stupid. There really should be some sort of voting radio button for 'fabulously fucking stupid'. Something so marvelously and completely wrong that it needs to be stickied or pinned or some such thing, just so the rest of the world can see the drop dead idiocy one individual is capable of. Bravo. *golf clap*

    3. Re:F-35 is not just American by gatkinso · · Score: 0

      You are of course, completely correct... except for the parts of the program funded by United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark. And let's not forget the design and test portions coming from BAE Systems Plc (not Inc, who is also balls deep).

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    4. Re:F-35 is not just American by MugenEJ8 · · Score: 1

      Just because a part or funding is sourced from another country, doesn't make it from that country. It's American in design and manufacturing, with parts and funding sourced from partners from around the world.

      This seriously had to be clarified twice? ._.

    5. Re:F-35 is not just American by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Apart from the parts which were not designed in the US, sure... Your definition of "American" seems to be based on feeling, not some sort of solid definition...

    6. Re:F-35 is not just American by MugenEJ8 · · Score: 2

      Apart from the parts which were not designed in the US, sure... Your definition of "American" seems to be based on feeling, not some sort of solid definition...

      I'll walk you through my thought process...

      Per Wikipedia: "It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Lockheed Martin is an American company. Therefore it must be American.

      I'll use another industry as an example. If Samsung produces 75% of the technology inside a television, and then sources the plastics from say China, it's still a South Korean product, not a South Korean & Chinese product. Or a car manufacturer, say Lotus, that sources an engine from Toyota, don't start saying their vehicle is British & Japanese. It's just British.

      I'm not saying that the JSF project is only American, but in design and manufacturing and the majority of the funding was in fact, American.

      How is what I'm saying based on feeling? It seems to me, you're trying to argue a point you can't substantiate either...

  4. Correct me if I'm wrong... by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Informative

    But the F35 is more or less combat ready in its basic form, it's mainly extended feature sets like the USMC's VTOL variant that are holding it back from being in use now.

    Moral of the story, though... the people who mocked the F22 as the boondoggle to the F35 should have been fired from the DoD and run out of Congress. The F22 ended up being cheaper and still better (IIRC). There's no excuse for being naive enough to believe "oh yeah, we'll be much cheaper" when building something like the F35.

    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The time for manned fighters is coming to an end. They should concentrate on the X-47B.

    2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > But the F35 is more or less combat ready in its basic form

      As long as you don't try to land it in cloudy weather.

                http://www.alternet.org/fail-4...

      Or on an aircraft carrier:

              http://theaviationist.com/2012...

      Or landing on the $1500/each tires twice in a row:

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

      Oh, and if the landing gear fails and the pilot has to eject, they can't safely eject over water. (See the first article.)

      If we needed to build supersonic "launch-only" aircraft, we could have done so _much_ more cheaply.

    3. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the F35 is more or less combat ready in its basic form, it's mainly extended feature sets like the USMC's VTOL variant that are holding it back from being in use now.

      Moral of the story, though... the people who mocked the F22 as the boondoggle to the F35 should have been fired from the DoD and run out of Congress. The F22 ended up being cheaper and still better (IIRC). There's no excuse for being naive enough to believe "oh yeah, we'll be much cheaper" when building something like the F35.

      The fundamental problem is we seem to have fallen in love with the idea that their is one airplane that can do it all, for all the services. As a result, the plane's performance degrades as it suffers bloat that makes Windows look positively svelte. The best read on this is Coram's book, "Boyd" that details John Boyd's battle agains the Air Force bureaucracy.

      The most telling line in TFA is that the F-35 is built in 45 states, thus ensuring it's survival since no Congressman or Senator wants to be accused of killing jobs in their home district or state. Wether or not the plane is what is needed is secondary to that; and woe be tide to any military leader that dares suggest killing it.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You do realize unmanned fighters are unproven. No manned fighter vs unmanned fighter dog fight between two countries who are near each in technologically terms has ever occurred. Unmanned fighters will probably be easy pickings. They'll likely fall for a predefined attack vector like the windows drone armies. Also, jamming and false imagining will pretty much end any use of drones in the battle field against a country with similar technologically development. Also, given human history of IT security giving machines gun seams like a rather bad idea.

    5. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its already in use by multiple air forces. The B version I think is the only one not in active duty at this point.

      The F-22 and the F-35 fill different roles.

      The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is an attack fighter. You send F-22s along with the F-35s on missions, the F-22s protect the F-35 from advanced air targets while they fly in heavily loaded and completely unable to perform any sort of meaningful air combat without dumping their fuel and weapons stores. The F-35 is like an F-16 configured for ground attack, the F-22 is like an F-16 configured for air superiority, though the F-35A in the proper configuration can maintain the same performance as the F-16 in an air superiority configuration, you're more or less unarmed at that point, which is also useless in combat.

      The F-22 and F-35 are complimentary aircraft, not competing. You and many in the government could have saved yourselves a fuckload of ignorance if you listened to the people who fight wars when they told you why to make both. It wasn't until the things were in the air and the reality of what happens when you load a fighter aircraft down with a few tons of bombs that people outside the military got the clue.

      Theres a reason you have multiple aircraft, just like theres a reason you have multiple types of foot soldier. Some are heavy armed and armored to take a pounding, some are fast as shit and light and are dead if you shoot them with a .22, and together they kick ass, alone, they can be annihilated by a well trained militia

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    6. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      They'll likely fall for a predefined attack vector

      Also, jamming and false imagining will pretty much end any use of drones in the battle field

      giving machines gun seams like a rather bad idea.

      You do realise there's a difference between "unmanned" and "autonomous" don't you?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      So you apparently no nothing about proving a new aircraft.

      Please show me any comparable aircraft in use in the modern world that didn't have the same sort of issues.

      You won't find ANY military aircraft in ANY country on the planet that didn't have similar issues in its development, at least not since WWII.

      You'll be able to find many commercial aircraft that haven't 'crashed' during development, but blow outs on landing? hahaha Even in commercial airliners, a blow out is 'normal'. Twice in a row? Unusual, but just. And I'm not talking about in development, I'm talking about that if you've flown very many airline flights, you've been on a flight with a blowout on landing, you just didn't know it.

      They don't design these aircraft to not blow out tires, they design them to deal with blowouts because smacking rubber onto asphalt at 180mph is a metric fuckton of energy going into one little object. ANY imperfection will show up quickly, and its more or less impossible to not have some sort of imperfection.

      I'm picking the tires as one to use as an example here, but the same is true pretty much across the board on other systems.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize unmanned fighters are unproven. No manned fighter vs unmanned fighter dog fight between two countries who are near each in technologically terms has ever occurred.

      The Garand M1 rifle is unproven. No infantry clash between two countries near each other in technological terms, one with semi-auto rifles, the other with bolt-repeaters has ever occurred.

      Unmanned fighters will probably be easy pickings. They'll likely fall for a predefined attack vector like the windows drone armies.

      Yes, and those semi-auto rifles will jam a lot and GIs will run through all their ammunition within seconds, which is why no country will be ever willing to reequip their soldiers. We have to prepare for the last war again.

      How did you come up with these ridiculous ideas?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Why manned fighters still have a place: Greater situational awareness, no radio link latency, not as sensitive to jamming.

      Doesn't matter how many G's your drone can pull if you have 500ms latency, and your sensors are jammed. And if the radio frequencies are jammed, the drone is a sitting duck, following simple pre-defined actions, while a pilot can figure out a solution/act independently.

    10. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by spoot · · Score: 2

      I'm old enough to remember we've been down this road before with the boondoggle of the multi-one-plane-to-rule-them-all before. I'm not dissing the f-35, it's just that we've been through this before with similar results:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    11. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Yes and aircraft will never pose a threat to warships. At least that's what they told General Mitchell. He fought the old military establishment so hard to create a new military capability that they eventually demoted him and then court martialed him. Always people want to fight the next war with the last war's weaponry. We need a new Billy Mitchell.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

    12. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      But the F35 is more or less combat ready in its basic form.

      Translation: "Not really ready yet...."

      --
      No sig today...
    13. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      That would have been a much more interesting comparison if you could render the Garand rifle unusable by jamming radio frequencies.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    14. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how jamming radio frequencies has anything to do with autonomous robots. They will kill you anyway.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Read up on it. We're not talking about drones here but autonomous fighters. You assign it a mission and then it concludes the mission according to programmed parameters.

    16. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      > You won't find ANY military aircraft in ANY country on the planet that didn't have similar issues in its development, at least not since WWII.

      Not this late in their development.

      The F35 has directly competing design goals, ranging from their supersonic stealth capabilities to their short take-off/landing requirements, which is precisely _why_ the tires cost $1500 and wear out so quickly. The belief that throwing more billions of design to resolve what are fundamentally incompatible needs for power, speed, stealth, aircraft carrier landing, and three different military departments' military needs are what we who do contracting would call a "money trough". The competing design requirements ensure that no design will _ever_ work well enough and it will _always_ require expensive revamping of the entire architecture to serve the conflicting clients' needs.

    17. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Jmc23 · · Score: 2

      So you really think it would be hard to program evasive maneuvers into a drone? No human would be able to handle reacting at that speed nor would their physiology be able to handle the movements. And when all else fails it can just be programmed to ram into the other plane.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    18. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The carrier variant isn't being fielded till 2019. It's still in testing.

    19. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not this late in their development.

      Apparently you weren't around for the F-111's development.

    20. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      But the fight isn't manned fighter vs unmanned drone.

      It's manned fighter vs *ten* unmanned drones.

      Drones are cheaper, so you can field lots of them. They are also more expendable - expensive, yes, but not so much, and you don't get the political fallout of losing a patriotic hero.

    21. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The A, B, and C models really aren't the same plane. The F35 is built in 45 different states because it is 3 different planes with thousands of components for each plane, and most of the components must be sourced from the United States. Go research the components that go into an iPhone or any other smart phone or computer and see how many different states and countries they are produced in.

    22. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I also seem to recall spectacular failures in the media of the F-14, the F16, and the F-18s.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    23. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by dbIII · · Score: 0

      Considering the last one flying had it's wings cut off last year to ship to Hawaii I'd say there's hardly anyone on this site that was around for the F-111's development - antique or not. It was in service for over 40 years after some years in development, so anyone paying attention during that time would have to be at least 60, probably closer to 65.

    24. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Talk about asymmetric warfare...

      First, unmanned is not equal to autonomous, not man controlled. It's quite possible to control those drones, we're not talking Hitler's V1s here.

      Second, price. Drones are dirt cheap compared to fighter jets. But that's not even important, I'll get to the reason why in a minute.

      Because finally, and that's the real advantage drones have over manned jets, pilot safety. It is impossible for the pilot to go KIA or MIA, in other words your experienced pilots remain available for duty no matter how long the war drags out. You need not replace your downed veterans with green recruits, something a conventional army will have to eventually. And that's also pretty much the only thing that could stop an US army. When you look at its "inner workings", tactically, strategically and politically, you'll notice that the ONLY thing that could stop the US military from rolling over an enemy today is the loss of manpower.

      If the past decade has taught us one thing then that the US congress, and in turn the US population, will accept near limitless military spending when they feel attacked. We're looking at a military budget where the amount of money blown DAILY could easily balance the foreign trade debt of smaller nations that they racked up in the past few decades. So whether a war that is deemed justified by congress and population needs 10 or 10 million drones, I guess it won't matter much.

      OTOH, the US is very sensitive to the loss of their manpower. If too many US soldiers die in a war half a globe away, the general sentiment towards the war can very quickly change. This ain't WW2 anymore where something like that could work. Vietnam already showed that it's easy to lose support at home if too many of our boys die in what is then deemed a "pointless war". Drones work beautifully here because nobody gets hurt. Ok, nobody that matters to the average US news station, that is.

      That's what makes drones so popular with military strategists. You can send them on suicide missions and nobody gives a shit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by JDeane · · Score: 1

      And to add as soon as you start jamming anything you are broadcasting a very strong signal. HARM missiles are designed for just such an occasion.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    26. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      ^ This...

      All too often people can't see the forest for the trees...

      With enough cheap drones (cheap compared to the cost of manned fighters), you can simply ram the enemy fighters. Production lines can produce more drones, but it takes years to replace a trained pilot.

      The war of the robots is coming, the first nation to field battle ready drones in huge numbers on land, sea, and air, will walk over everyone else.

    27. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I'm old enough to remember we've been down this road before with the boondoggle of the multi-one-plane-to-rule-them-all before. I'm not dissing the f-35, it's just that we've been through this before with similar results:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

      Heh. That's the plane Boyd said, when asked what could be done with it, said "Rip the wings off, paint it yellow, and make it the fastest crew delivery bus."

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    28. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Saffaya · · Score: 1

      Cheaper and better than ... what ?
      The F-22 was inferior in almost every important metric to its competitor, the YF-23.
      Except for being backed by the side with most corrupt^H^H^H^H lobbying power.

    29. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The Garand M1 rifle is unproven. No infantry clash between two countries near each other in technological terms, one with semi-auto rifles, the other with bolt-repeaters has ever occurred.

      Well, except for WW2, in both Germany and Japan.

      Yes, both the Germans and Japanese used bolt-repeaters, and both were at technological (though not industrial) parity with the USA.

      And Korea, of course. Mustn't forget Korea, though most of the soldiers on both sides were using semi-autos, there were a few, on both sides, using bolt-repeaters (snipers, mostly, but some reservist-types also).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    30. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who are near each in technologically terms.... .a country with similar technologically development.

      You do know that the reason why the US Military has such a large budget is that it is their doctrine to be at minimum 20 years ahead of everyone else, allies included, right? In other words, your ignorance is jamming the signal.

    31. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      The F-14 was fine for what it was designed for, high speed interception of aircraft and long range engagement using the AIM-154 Phoenix missile.

      It was not a dogfighter, regardless of what the movie Top Gun tried to show, it handled like a pig and could not out turn the Mig-29 or Su-27.

      The F-16 is a nice airplane, but fragile and has horrible endurance, it has to carry drop tanks to fly any real distance and can't carry many bombs when it does. It is a nice fighter when clean, useless when loaded down with tanks and bombs. It is a bit too small for a multi-roll fighter bomber.

      The F-18? Don't even get me started... too small, underpowered, etc... The Super Hornet addressed some of those problems, but frankly the Navy has played second fiddle to the Air Force for a long time.

    32. Re: Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I am wrong but we don't have autonomous fighters, we have uavs.

    33. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      But if the attack fighters can't fight because they're configured to destroy ground targets, then why not just use bombers instead?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    34. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which costs more, a HARM missile or an open running microwave with a stick jammed into the door interlock?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    35. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Getting close enough to ram at jet speeds is easier said then done.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      You're right. We should get started right away on some sort of automated guidance system that can home in on a fast moving target.

      Why with those capabilities we could even put it on our fighter jets to attack other fighter jets!!

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    37. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Isn't the majority of air-to-air combat strategy now just to fire an active radar AIM-120 AMRAAM from a bajillion miles away anyway?

    38. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isnt difficult, look at missles! Now add to that that drones can withstand a much greater stress then manned aircraft because you take out the weak meatbag and you got yourself a fine ramming plane. Although a machine gun on there will do fine too.

    39. Re: Correct me if I'm wrong... by amiga3D · · Score: 1
    40. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by zacherynuk · · Score: 1

      True enough - but even AIM missiles don't 'ram' their target - they just get close enough to cause damage and then detonate.

    41. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drones are cheaper

      This is a myth.

    42. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      The "land in cloudy weather" part looks like it just hasn't been certified to do so, which makes sense for a new aircraft.

    43. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really have no fucking idea how this all works, do you?

    44. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      I'd say one of us doesn't.

      Look it up. Microwaves made excellent radiation seeker decoys. Of course now you claim they've fixed that. Given that you didn't know about them until reading this post...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    45. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Find me a drone that flies as fast as a missile. Then realize the missile doesn't 'ram'. Then realize the missile will be coming at the drone.

      Alternatively you're just suggesting calling SAMs, drones.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    46. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      and I would still take that manned fighter over ten unmanned ones every day.

      You see you have a real brain in the manned fighter. in the unmanned ones you are limited by cameras, radar and your communications link.

      See what happened to a recent lost airline flight when your communications disappear. radar can only tell you so much. camera's don't work well without feedback from the controls. heck a couple of modified ICBM's. can wipe out everything you just dreamed about. start blowing up satellites that only highly developed countries really depend on and watch those drones become expensive paper weights.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    47. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bombers are a blunt instrument; they work when you need a large area levelled, they don't work so well when the enemy is within meters of your allies. Ground attack aircraft have the agility to get low and put in more precise shots against moving targets (something bombers can't do at all).

      There's a reason the A-10 still sees active service despite the age of the platform.

    48. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by willy_me · · Score: 1

      One of the big cost savings is in not having to constantly maintain and operate aircraft and pilot skills. With drones you just leave the thing packed up in storage until it is needed. Just look at how many hours your typical F18 has on it before it is ever used in combat - that's a big expense that an air-to-air drone would not have.

    49. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      Reaper drone: $17M (and this is not the cheapest drone)
      F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: $67M (and this is far from the most expensive manned aircraft)
      You were saying?

      Yeah, yeah, I know these prices on Wikipedia are very rough estimates, military hardware has a variable price tag depending on procurement negotiations, and drones that are mainly used for ground attack fall into an entirely different category than multirole fighters, making the comparison almost meaningless. But think of it, how could a drone not be cheaper? Compared to a manned aircraft, you save money by throwing out all life support systems including oxygen system and G-suit and the pneumatic system supporting it, human interfaces (basically mostly everything in the cockpit), a transparent canopy that provides visibility at the cost of drag, and an ejection seat. Yes, you'll need to replace these with redundant military-grade flight computers and sophisticated sensors and communication systems, but guess what? Modern fighters already have most of that. Then you save some more money on safety/reliability/hardiness/redundancy; you don't want your drones to be falling out of the sky by the dozens or be destroyed by one hit of a bullet, but they are allowed to be considerably less secure if the life of an expensive-to-train pilot (and potential interrogee/hostage/propaganda tool) is not on the line. Once you're done with all that, you'll find your plane has become several hundred kg lighter and more streamlined too. So you can get away with smaller engines and wings, which make the plane even lighter... the final percentage gain in weight is higher than the original percentage of weight that was needed to support a pilot. And once you're done with all that, you'll not only find your end product has become dramatically cheaper, but also more maneuverable, since the fragile human body is no longer limiting the number of Gs you can pull.

    50. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      This isn't just a case of normal teething problems. This is a case of a program to build an affordable, stealthy multirole fighter ballooning into the most expensive defense program ever, yet still failing to meet most of its performance goals. The F35 is heavier, slower, less agile and less stealthy than originally planned, has shorter range, and is much, much more expensive. The vanilla F35A will cost as much as an F22 per unit, and cost 2x as much per hour to operate as some of the aircraft it is replacing. And that's assuming the F35 becomes operational when promised. Already it is late by longer than the entire development cycle, from contract to deployment, of any of the teen series fighters.

      By any reasonable standard, this was a scandalously managed program. If it is successful, it is only by revising all of the program's original goals. That may still leave the F35 as the best multi-role fighter in the world, but that should have been done years ago at a fraction of the cost.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    51. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by blane.bramble · · Score: 1

      Your prayers have been answered - here is a new Billy Mitchell

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

    52. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by fnj · · Score: 1

      You might have mentioned that your two examples are in no way comparable.
      Reaper: max speed 482 km/h, cruise 313 km/h, max payload 1700 kg
      F-18: max speed 1915 km/h, max payload 8050 kg

      One has very suphisticated air-to-air capability; the other has none. One is very highly maneuverable, the other is a truck to carry cameras and guided air-to-surface munitions to where they are needed.

      Make them anywhere near comparable in capability and there is not going to be much cost difference in the development and construction. OTOH, to be fair, the real cost saving is the enormous advantage in not having to train and maintain proficiency of on-board pilots. Forget the rest of the argument. At best, it has yet to be born out by fact, and at worst it is a bunch of fanciful and wishful thinking.

    53. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That crack you heard was a supersonic "Woosh" flying by you.

    54. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It is flight ready. But the electronics controlling the weapon systems can fire *some* AA missiles and that is it. An F-16 replacement it is not.

      Maybe in 4-5 years when they finish rewriting all that Ada code in C++.

    55. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In all good nature, you're funny, kid. I was 65 a year and a half years ago. Guess I don't know how to participate in slashdot. Or build my own desktop, build and operate my own server, or write embedded computer software either, for that matter.

    56. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Rufty · · Score: 0

      t too small for a multi-roll

      U dont no how two spel.

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    57. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if the attack fighters can't fight because they're configured to destroy ground targets, then why not just use bombers instead?

      Bombers... for what?!? Have you been paying attention to what we've been blowing up lately?

      We don't need more bombs per mission, we need _really_ accurate ones with the explosive energy of half a hand grenade. That's a little exaggerated but our needs are really more in that direction than in bombers unless we've taken to razing cities while I was sleeping.

    58. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Well the Germans also had the Sturmgewehr 44. They only detail is they did not manufacture as many rifles.

    59. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I think a new David Packard and John Boyd are needed too. Instead of this one plane fits all McNamara bullshit.

    60. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The F-14 was fine for what it was designed for, high speed interception of aircraft and long range engagement using the AIM-154 Phoenix missile.

      It was not a dogfighter, regardless of what the movie Top Gun tried to show, it handled like a pig and could not out turn the Mig-29 or Su-27.

      You're glossing over the issues the F-14A had with the TF30 engine. The spin that killed Goose in Top Gun wasn't a made up Hollywood plot device, that could and did happen in the real world, because of single engine compressor stalls, and the F-14 didn't reach its full potential until the F-14B variant, with the F110 engine.

      I would also submit that you're selling the Tomcat short in the dog fighting arena. Turning radius is only one measure of a dogfighter, at the end of the day teamwork and training matters a lot more, and in those two areas I would put the USN up against any operator of the Mig-29 or Su-27.

      The F4F Wildcat turned like a truck but still managed a 6 to 1 kill ratio against the Japanese, even during the dark days of 1942, and held a positive kill ratio against the nimble Zero. Teamwork (see Thach Weave), ruggedness, and the design flaws of the Japanese fighters gave it all the edge it needed to carry out its mission.

      The Tomcat was the spiritual successor to the Wildcat, with a lot of the same design philosophies, and wouldn't bet against it when facing any competing fighter of the day.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    61. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If it pulses it, target it. If it's a solid broadcast signal, it's not RADAR (unless it's a part of a very complex multi-broadcast/multi-receiver system). It would be possible to build a system with always on as the only transmitter, but how would you get ranging? Generally it works by sending a "ping" and measuring the time response. With a continuous ping, there's nothing to measure, other than Doppler.

      And I'd expect that if microwaves were used as wide-spread decoys, then A-10s guided by AWACS would be the response (it's happened before), not million dollar missile, but $10 lead (lots of $10 lead). At least until the A-10s are decommissioned.

    62. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filling the sky with armed robots sounds like a GREAT idea indeed. Of course, like everything else man-made, they will not be perfect. It will just be a matter of time until one goes rogue and shoots down a commercial plane full of passengers or lights up a row of cars on some busy road.

      Everyone is sooo concerned to take the human out of the equation that the fucking morons forget there is no such thing. Humans should always be the one to kill other humans. Period.

    63. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The most expensive drone ever fielded is way cheaper than the F-35, which isn't the most expensive plane, but the newest (and supposedly cheaper than some of the planes it replaces).

    64. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      One has very suphisticated air-to-air capability; the other has none.

      Both fire missiles. That is all. The cheapest missile wins, and that's the drone. There hasn't been "dogfights" on any mass scale since Vietnam.

    65. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      start blowing up satellites that only highly developed countries really depend on and watch those drones become expensive paper weights.

      Satellites are only needed to show the results in HQ real-time. Most drones are still flown by people at the same airfield they are flown from, using terrestrial links. Sure, the new ones "can" go via satellite from the other side of the world, but they don't have to.

      BTW, which satellite kill system can hit GEO satellites? An ICBM can get to LEO and take out Iridium, but can't get to GEO orbit.

    66. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Generally it works by sending a "ping" and measuring the time response. With a continuous ping, there's nothing to measure, other than Doppler."

      It's obviously an arduino-powered microwave oven.

    67. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      This from someone that mentions helicopters? Airplanes aren't much better than helicopters in this aspect. Most helicopters can have catastrophic failure modes caused by the pilot long before the structural limits of the helicopter itself. Too rough on the back cyclic? Oops, boom strike.

      Airplanes aren't much better. With so many years of 10g being a practical limit to maneuver without killing the pilot, they don't go much past that before the wings fall off. Especially if you are loading/unloading the wings in rapid succession, as in evasive maneuvers. Sure, those limits could be programmed in, but it'd lower capability.

    68. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Set the microwave to 'defrost' (pulsed); million dollar HARM missile improvement defeated.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    69. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know much about this stuff, but: A B-51 (or B-1, or whatever else is in active use) can't slip by radar and is significantly slower. The B-2 is also slow, expensive to run, and has a more limited payload (and are the stealth capabilities still as good these days?). You need to hit something fast, or something under AA cover, you need to pick the right tool.

    70. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They don't ram it, but they are designed/guided to do so. Easier to detonate near it after you hit it.

    71. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

      How about a spoiler warning, I haven't seen Top Gun yet.

    72. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, we know that if you build something in only one state, it gets cut. See Superconducting Super Collider. One state build/dig. Got quickly cut, wasting all invested money. Without sufficient pork, progress is stopped. With sufficient pork, pointless overruns continue for decades.

    73. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      The F-4's biggest weakness, as it was initially designed, was its lack of an internal cannon. For a brief period, doctrine held that turning combat would be impossible at supersonic speeds and little effort was made to teach pilots air combat maneuvering. In reality, engagements quickly became subsonic, as pilots would slow down in an effort to get behind their adversaries. Furthermore, the relatively new heat-seeking and radar-guided missiles at the time were frequently reported as unreliable and pilots had to use multiple shots (also known as ripple-firing), just to hit one enemy fighter. To compound the problem, rules of engagement in Vietnam precluded long-range missile attacks in most instances, as visual identification was normally required. Many pilots found themselves on the tail of an enemy aircraft but too close to fire short-range Falcons or Sidewinders. Although by 1965 USAF F-4Cs began carrying SUU-16 external gunpods containing a 20 mm (.79 in) M61 Vulcan Gatling cannon, USAF cockpits were not equipped with lead-computing gunsights until the introduction of the SUU-23, virtually assuring a miss in a maneuvering fight. Some marine corps aircraft carried two pods for strafing. In addition to the loss of performance due to drag, combat showed the externally mounted cannon to be inaccurate unless frequently boresighted, yet far more cost-effective than missiles. The lack of a cannon was finally addressed by adding an internally mounted 20 mm (.79 in) M61 Vulcan on the F-4E

      The notion that air to air combat is going to be missile based implicitly assumes the US will only fight countries which are enormously inferior in military capabilities or where people don't want to fight - e.g. Iraq, Libya etc. Put the US in a battle with North Korea, China, Russia etc and things will change.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    74. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Autonomous flying robots commonly use radar to "see" their environment and radio links to navigate and get commands. Few of them have the ability to operate without any radio or radar. American drones don't shoot without orders (afaik).

    75. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Speed radar is always on, it doesn't pulse. And you can make a constant transmitting radar, you cycle the transmit frequency and use the frequency of the echo to know when it was sent. Or you can use multiple receivers at separate locations to see the echo and triangulate. this has the benefit that your (expensive) radar doesn't transmit (can't be targeted) while your dirt cheap transmitter can have many (thousands) redundant backups. For a third world country the military benefits of such an air defense system is well worth the cost.

    76. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      the F35 isn't late in development, it's still in Beta. The pentagon rushed through with production of aircraft before the design is finished, so you have to expect problems. This is completely normal, as is the cost overruns from doing your development in real life instead of a test lab.

    77. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the *current* state of affairs. However, in the future, it will be advantageous to make the machines at least highly semi-automatic (for starters, electronics has much better "reflexes"). And even if humans stay in the loop for the majority of time, a future drone might have a "get the hell out of here" mode reserved for any situation in which jamming disrupts normal operation to the extent that RF equipment is rendered useless and communication gets interrupted, possibly effectively attacking anyone actively trying to prevent them from leaving the battlefield. (After all, these machines will be still expensive, even if possibly much cheaper than an F-35.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    78. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is an attack fighter.

      First, if all they needed was a strike aircraft with overwhelming air-to-ground capability, they already had it with the A-10 Warthog (or Thunderbolt II for you purists). It can carry a cubic assload of bombs, has extended loiter capability, can take off and land on short, unimproved runways, is perhaps the best aerial gun platform in the history of aviation, and can take an immense amount of punishment, make it back to base, and be repaired for another strike before the pilot has time to grab a sandwich. Alas, it's not "sexy" enough so nobody wants to fly it. Fighter jocks look down on the "air-to-mud" boys, you know. But us grunts -- I'm a former Marine -- absolutely love knowing your call for CAS is being answered by a 'hog.

      Second, the F-35 is not just being pitched as an "attack fighter" as you claim. It's being positioned as the Swiss Army Knife of airframes, the complete multi-role, multi-service, multi-theater, all-season do-it-all flying wonder plane. It's stealthy...but not terribly stealthy compared to other airborne threats. It's fast...but not very fast compared to fighters it's likely to face. It can flow slowly for accurate bombing...but not as slowly or as accurately as what we already have. It has endurance...well, not so much. And it costs less than what it's replacing...except it doesn't. McNamara tried this same crap back in the 60's and we ended up with the F-111, a "fighter" that couldn't fight. It was too big, too heavy, too complex, too expensive to make, too expensive to maintain, too hard to fly...and *nobody* wanted it. Today the F-111's are largely rusting away somewhere while B-52's are still flying, delivering bombloads much more effectively, reliably, and cheaply.

      Honestly, what the US needs in the way of air power is this:

      - A small but elite force of the stealthiest, fastest, most-maneuverable, most survivable, most advanced aircraft this country can possibly produce (i.e. F-22, B-2). These are our "alpha strike" planes. They go in on the first day of a conflict and kick the shit out of SAM sites, ground- and air-based RADAR, Command and Control facilities, fuel and ammo dumps, runways, and staging areas. After a brief but furiously intense campaign, the enemy is left without any effective way to defend against even basic air strikes. Then the war is turned over to...

      - A medium-sized force of semi-stealthy and non-stealthy attack aircraft (fixed- and rotary-winged) which can now operate with near impunity due to degraded enemy defenses. A-10's, B-52's, F/A-18's, AH-64's...you get the idea. These are much more affordable than the "alpha strike" package to keep operational. They're also already bought and paid for, have large cadres of trained pilots, and can deliver much bigger attack loads than their stealthier brethren. This phase keeps up until the enemy is more or less fully subdued and organized resistance has almost been wiped out. Then things are turned over to...

      - A very large force of unmanned and/or autonomous drones equipped for air-to-air and air-to-ground operations. These can be cheaply maintained for an indefinite period with absolutely zero political cost should one get lost to enemy action. Further, they act like omnipresent snipers, orbiting beyond normal aural and visual range but ready to deliver a laser-guided Hellfire "bolt from the blue" in an instant. The effects of such constant threats on enemy morale cannot be understated. Meanwhile, our "boots on the ground" are largely back home or operating in secure areas, reducing the chance of domestic upheaval by an unhappy populace over some "neverending war."

      The biggest mistake this country is currently making is assuming we need just one type of aircraft for just one type of conflict. Modern wars have many different phases, most of which will involve a "low intensity conflict" in an area where large, high-value targets are not present. Having a fleet of super-advanced weapons which costs too much to make and too much to maintain is just stupid when there are better options on the table.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    79. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      The F-22 was inferior in almost every important metric to its competitor, the YF-23.

      That's not entirely true, and I say that as fan of the YF-23. The F-22 was less stealthy but more maneuverable. The Air Force valued the latter somewhat more than the former at the time, and here we are today.

      That said, the real farce was that Lockheed was allowed to submit *two* proposals. The first one clearly would have lost to the YF-23, so Lockheed was allowed to go back to the drawing board and submit a second...*after* the USAF told them what they needed to change in order to win over their hearts and minds. Northrop was given no such second chance.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    80. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      what we who do contracting would call a "money black hole"

      FTFY

    81. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Didn't the US military learn from past mistakes that trying to build one fighter for everyone is a stupid idea?

    82. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by flyingsquid · · Score: 2

      Moral of the story, though... the people who mocked the F22 as the boondoggle to the F35 should have been fired from the DoD and run out of Congress. The F22 ended up being cheaper and still better (IIRC). There's no excuse for being naive enough to believe "oh yeah, we'll be much cheaper" when building something like the F35.

      The F-22 IS a huge waste of money, it's only when you put it next to the fiasco of the F-35 program that it doesn't look so bad. The fact that one is a disaster doesn't make the other one a success. That's like arguing that Hitler was a good guy because he killed fewer people than Stalin.

      Both programs are relics of the Cold War era, which have persisted only because they fill the need of congressmen to deliver pork to their states, and because the former fighter pilots who run the US Air Force are unwilling to admit that the era of manned fighters is coming to an end. The smart move would be to ditch the F-35 and the F-22, focus on upgrading the F-15, F-16 and F-18 to maintain air superiority for the next ten years, while developing UCAVs to fill the air superiority, attack, and carrier-based attack roles currently filled by those planes. We're witnessing the end of an era. Guns made knights and castles obsolete; internal combustion engines made cavalry obsolete; carriers made battleships obsolete... the same thing is happening here. If we refuse to admit it because Air Force generals are sentimental about the role of pilots, because congressmen want to steer money to their district, or because the public thought "Top Gun" was an awesome movie, then we stand to waste billions of dollars and lose our technological lead.

    83. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      I'd say one of us doesn't.

      Look it up. Microwaves made excellent radiation seeker decoys. Of course now you claim they've fixed that. Given that you didn't know about them until reading this post...

      This is a myth. It's been debunked for over 20 years now.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    84. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

    85. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second, price. Drones are dirt cheap compared to fighter jets.

      Not by nearly as much as you'd imagine, actually.

      Predator, $4mil unit cost, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_RQ-1_Predator
      A-10, $12mil unit cost, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

      More advanced UCAVs haven't been developed enough to really put a price on them. X-47B development is near $1bil.

    86. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe in videogames, but there is a bit more than that.

    87. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      A manned pilot will pass out if he pulls too many Gs. This isn't an issue with an unmanned fighter. You're also assuming the unmanned are relying on outside signals, but they could be programmed to operate on their own.

      I would give the unmanned fighter the advantage over a human pilot that can't accelerate as fast, turn as fast, has slower reflexes, not as precise aim, etc.

    88. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      You're not wrong about it being a truck, but your conclusion that there's not going to be much cost difference between a drone and a piloted vehicle seems to be a stretch. Why shouldn't it be cheaper? As OneAhead said, there are a whole pile of differences in the requirements that let you save on costs.

      And in the end, all modern aircraft are pretty much just trucks to carry missiles of various types to where they need to be launched. The only exceptions to that are ground support aircraft like the A10 or AC130.

    89. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      True, but an AIM-9 Sidewinder doesn't actually have a very large explosive...

      And it wouldn't be that hard to put such an explosive in a drone, and it wouldn't be that hard to put a small rocket motor for a final speed boost on a drone for just such a use.

      If you have 10 of them in the sky, the manned fighter can probably dodge 2 or 3 of them... but 5 of them?

      One of the things is... an AIM-9 is actually not that hard to dodge... the trick is to dodge two of them...

      One of the things they teach is that if you are firing on a highly manouverouble fighter such as a Mig-29, fire one, wait 2 seconds, fire a second... the Mig-29 will use up its energy dodging the first and be unable to avoid the second.

    90. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find me a drone that flies as fast as a missile. Then realize the missile doesn't 'ram'. Then realize the missile will be coming at the drone.

      Alternatively you're just suggesting calling SAMs, drones.

      I predict that line will become blurred. Just because current drones are subsonic doesn't mean they always will be. And as the tech advances they'll look to retrofit existing missles with it or if there are too many technical obstacles design new variants that incorporate it.

    91. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the same thing killed the first female naval fighter pilot...

      She waved off a carrier landing, yawed the airplane, stalled one engine, gave it full afterburner and rolled the airplane over because it doesn't have enough rudder for the spacing of the engines. The RIO pulled the ejection rope and survived, but because the pilot leaves the plane 0.4 seconds after the RIO (as planned), she ejected right into the water and was killed instantly.

      It doesn't help that the F-14A/B has the old Martian Baker GRU-7A ejection seat which sucks compared to the ACES II.

      Had she been in an F-15, she would have survived because the ACES II can do an inverted 140ft ejection and thrust vector around to level... The Martian Baker cannot.

      ---------

      Back on point... yes, pilot training matters, a good pilot in an average airplane will beat a poor pilot in the best airplane...

      However, given equal pilot skill, the F-14 will lose to most true fighter airplanes from the era, unless in long range engagements using its AIM-154, it was really a bomber interceptor, not a fighter.

    92. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      Can't tell if you're arguing for or against drones being able to pull more Gs.
      If you tried to slap an autonomous control system into a modern plane it might not be able to pull many more Gs than a manned one, but if you design a drone from scratch you could make it fly a lot better. And since you can build it smaller, you get less loading and even better gains.

    93. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Helicopters have suffered for a long time from a lack of R&D, but some has been done...

      The RAH-66 Comanche would have been wonderful, if it hadn't been killed, it was semi-stealthy and had a superior rotor system that allowed it to do things nothing else the military has can do. But it simply fell victim to budget cuts and a military that loves fast fancy airplanes rather than flingwings...

      Want to see a cool advance?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      That uses some new technology that has been developed into this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      Will it enter service? Hopefully, it really is pretty cool.

      What you think of as limits to airplane performance is true only because of the old thinking of manned airplanes. I am a commercial airplane and helicopter pilot, flight instructor in both, and I see the future is dim for pilots in the air of any kind. Yes, a pilot is superior to programming, but 1 pilot isn't superior to 10 super cheap and super maneuverable drones.

      That is the future, like it or not.

    94. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What you think of as limits to airplane performance is true only because of the old thinking of manned airplanes.

      True. And I'm not sure we have anything ready to go if we got the OK for unmanned aerial combat. Helicopers were initally used for weapon platforms. Unless they make the weapons cheaper and dumber, the helicopter would be a good platform. You don't need to close the gap or be able to out-perform the other vehicle if you can kill it from a standstill. The question is about cost. What's the cheapest way to kill the other vehicle? A more expensive and faster UAV with dumber and cheaper munitions. Or the cheap UAV with more expensive munitions.

      That, and it'll take some re-design to figure out tactics and programming for optimal results. And what do we do when faced with a mix of manned and unmanned threats?

    95. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They should theoretically be much superior, once re-designed from scratch. But when drones are airplane-lite, they'll not be any better, and most today are worse (optimized for range and load, not performance).

    96. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Since a lot of posters here act as if they are 12 that's a pleasant surprise.
      I never got to see an F111 at very low altitude using ground following radar (which is probably just as well for my eardrums). Up until 2012 the highlight of a fireworks display in my city was an F111 fuel dump and burn, and that's the last time I saw one flying.

    97. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      One has very suphisticated air-to-air capability; the other has none.

      Both fire missiles. That is all. The cheapest missile wins, and that's the drone. There hasn't been "dogfights" on any mass scale since Vietnam.

      Odd that you mention Vietnam. When the US went into Vietnam with the F4 Phantom II, they weren't equipped with cannons because the US air force believed that the age of dogfighting was over due to missiles. Experiences in Vietnam proved this assumption false and the F4 Phantom was redesigned with a cannon.

      Also, you're wrong.
      - Arab-Israeli wars, F15 and 16's fought Mig 21 and 25's.
      - Falklands War (1985) British sea harriers fought Argentine Mirage III and Daggers.
      - Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), not only did it see many fixed wing dogfights, it was the first confirmed helicopter dogfight between an Iranian AH1 and Iraqi HIND.
      - Desert Storm (1991).
      - Balkans conflict (1999), to be fair, this was only 1 dogfight.

      The advent of air to air and ground to air guided missiles didn't eliminate dogfights, it just changed the parameters. Aircraft still get in close combat (especially since missiles fired from long range are more susceptible to countermeasures.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    98. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aside of comparing an ancient plane that has recouped its investment tenfold with a fairly new invention that still is produced...

      Drones have one advantage you simply cannot beat: Drones have no family and no fear of death.

      Drones offer a lot more tactical and strategical flexibility. If need be, if push comes to shove, it's no big deal to send a few of them on a "suicide" mission, no return planned. Yes, that's costly, but it will only ever cost money. It's never going to be a "moral" or political problem. It's nearly impossible to justify anything like that with a manned aircraft. Not even in a war that's about to be lost.

      You can also send drones into much more risky areas. There is no such thing as a "too dangerous" mission, if the mission goal warrants it, a 100% loss rate is not out of the question.

      The fact alone that there is no human being in the crate opens up a whole new area of tactical options. You can ram an enemy if the target warrants the loss of the drone, turning it into a "kamikaze bomber". You can pull WAY more than 9g, to the stress limit of the material. And if the situation warrants it, you can even try to exceed that limit in a "sink or swim" attempt (i.e. if it breaks apart, so be it). You can be a lot more ruthless and reckless to your own material because that material actually IS just material and no human being.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    99. Re: Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we know how to solve a problem we haven't needed to solve in 60 years.

    100. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Because finally, and that's the real advantage drones have over manned jets, pilot safety. It is impossible for the pilot to go KIA or MIA, in other words your experienced pilots remain available for duty no matter how long the war drags out. You need not replace your downed veterans with green recruits, something a conventional army will have to eventually.

      Which makes it all the more important to bring the war to the civilian population of the enemy. Target the drone jockeys family's, friends, shopping malls etc.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    101. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The US wasn't involved in many of those. The failure with F4 in vietnam was that we didn't have enough of them in the air. We never went to war without overpowering air superiority since, so there were almost no US dogfights since. Just a few isolated cases. The Airforce was right, they just needed more F4s.

      Looking up the answer, I noted there hasn't been a flying ace in the US military since Vietnam. There just aren't enough planes to shoot down. And Wikipedia mentions "It is actually more likely that flying aces won't occur due to technological changes. This is due to the fact that the traditional fighter-versus-fighter dogfight is extremely rare in contemporary warfare, as unmanned aircraft and other computerized technology, including anti-aircraft missiles, have taken a prominent seat in contemporary aviation warfare."

      Even wikipedia tells us dogfights are rare, with the last us pilot ace being 40+ years ago. There just haven't been that many planes to shoot down. We kill them on the ground and with ground to air weapons before we take to the air.

    102. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Airplanes can already be built that will pull 30+ Gs, that is the easy part... how about 50? 100?

      Sound crazy? Not really. How about an airplane without "wings", one with an adaptive surface that can be adjusted by the computer into almost any aerodynamic shape?

      Such things have been tested at small scale, they do work, but you could never put a pilot into them. They can change direction on a dime because unlike airplanes with ailerons, rudders, elevators, etc, the whole aircraft can change the shape of its body to produce lift in another direction.

      The Russians have shown what fully vectored thrust can do, the F-22 actually doesn't have as good a thrust vector unit as the Russians have, but it has many things they don't, so overall it is a much better package.

      What about an airplane that can direct thrust 270 degrees up and down, side to side, that can change its shape, and overall is cheap because there is no pilot?

      Look at the Predator and Reaper, they still look like airplanes because the people in charge only know "that" is what an airplane should look like.

      Look at the old YF-23, back during the ATF competition. Many say it lost because it didn't "look" like a fighter, it was too "different". Maybe so, but it points out that anything too "different" is looked down on.

      Remove the human and aircraft can be many things they are currently not. It will take time and R&D and it will take imagination, but it can be done.

      Get the cost down, build them in huge numbers... they can overwhem a superior force, even one with better pilots.

      A good example, abit not airplanes, would be the Germans and Americans in WWII. The M4 Sherman tank was CLEARLY outclassed in France in 1944 against the Mark V Panther and Mark VI Tiger tanks, it often took 10 M4 tanks to knock out a single Tiger tank.

      The Germans built a few thousand Tigers, we built 44,000 Shermans... We overwhelmed them with numbers and brute force...

      Trained pilots and skill account for a lot, but raw numbers can make up for a lot of that.

    103. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      At best, it has yet to be born out by fact, and at worst it is a bunch of fanciful and wishful thinking.

      Translation: "I zoned out at 'but think of it'".

    104. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Citation please? Because while I might buy that if you managed to find a mid 70s working Microwave oven (those bastards cranked some serious power) that you MIGHT be able to rig it into some sort of jammer but I'm having a hard time believing that these weak sauce microwaves you get off the boat from China are good for anything but burning popcorn.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    105. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You almost had it but it slipped right by you. It is all today with fault tolerance. The human mind is extremely fault tolerant when compared to a computer, in point of fact the is absolutely no comparison.

      The drone is only really good for slaughtering unarmed person or at least those person unable to defend themselves from it, when deployed by the US a terror weapon, a weapon not really designed to kill the enemy but terrorise people within designated free fire zone. It is simply too fault intolerant a system, achieve one fault, one bit out of place and it fails.

      Reality is, the be all and end all is the supersonic stealth cruise missile, long range and nuclear tipped. Don't need not fighters, no drones, anti-aircraft can not touch because they fly to low and fast, do not need ground troops or ships, and you certainly don't need a civilian population, they are just as disposable as everything else. Here it is proof http://www.armscontrol.org/fac..., they all know it but the beast, the military industrial complex must be fed, it must consume people and money, it demands to be fed. So they pretend the long range stealth supersonic missile does not exist and instead defend against imaginary threats whilst also striving to 'CREATE' actual threats.

      The real threat for quite a few decades has been the US military industrial complex, a real and present danger for the whole world. Psychopathic criminals in charge of weapons of mass destructions for the any excuse imagined or created to deploy imagined, all with the support of US mass media as well as the US government channel, no different from any other media channel, saying what it has be paid to say.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    106. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Xest · · Score: 1

      To be honest pretty much all of your criticisms about the F-35 were made about the Harrier too, but the Falklands made it clear that it did actually perform in the end given that 12 of them held their own against the entire Argentinian airforce at first which comprised of things like French built Mirage IIIs and Super Etendards, American built A4 Skyhawks, and Israeli built Daggers, all still pretty impressive jets for the early 80s.

      I think it's impossible to gauge how a jet performs in practice until it actually has to, and even then it's probably more about how good your pilots are at adapting to it's weaknesses and taking advantage of it's strengths - a key part of the success of the Harriers in the Falklands. It seems pointless to write it off if it's never been tested when people did exactly that with the Harrier only to end up being proven so terribly wrong that their credibility on such matters was shot to hell.

      I mean, as an ex-Marine you're no doubt well aware that even your guys subsequently bought them having seen how well they did for us in that war and they're still going strong for you to this day in places like Afghanistan.

    107. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      It has Tom Cruise in it. He's a pilot, a pretty good pilot until he has a crisis of conscious and can't pilot anymore. Then he meets a girl who teaches him it's ok to pilot and he becomes the best pilot he can be. A lot like Days of Thunder or any other Cruise film but this one has jets, and latent repressed homosexuality but JETS!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    108. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      In all good nature, you're funny, kid. I was 65 a year and a half years ago. Guess I don't know how to participate in slashdot. Or build my own desktop, build and operate my own server, or write embedded computer software either, for that matter.

      No one cares about that. Go through each and every publicised failure of the F-111 then compare and contrast to the F-35 aaaaaaaand go.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    109. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Didn't the US military learn from past mistakes that trying to build one fighter for everyone is a stupid idea?

      HAHAHAHA, good one.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    110. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Proliferation is of course a great way of making a small war large, but aside of that you will probably not accomplish much. It's trivial to put those pilots in bunkers that can withstand pretty much any kind of attack you could possibly field short of MAD.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    111. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      To be honest pretty much all of your criticisms about the F-35 were made about the Harrier too, but the Falklands made it clear that it did actually perform in the end given that 12 of them held their own against the entire Argentinian airforce at first which comprised of things like French built Mirage IIIs and Super Etendards, American built A4 Skyhawks, and Israeli built Daggers, all still pretty impressive jets for the early 80s

      The brits had more than 40 well equipped harriers while the Argentinians aircraft were not exactly well equipped or well piloted even though they had superior numbers. Even so, the British Harriers saw 10 of their Harriers lost to a combination of surface fire and accidents, none from other aircraft, and were not able to keep the Argentinians from sinking several ships (could have been worse had the Argentinian pilots been better trained). The British suffered from having gotten rid of their big carriers in favor of Harrier based small ones.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    112. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Why are you saying "we"? Were you in WWII fighting the Germans with your thousands of tanks? Or is glomming yourself on to those better than you make you feel better? Serious question.

    113. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Unless you're trying to claim Britain would've won the war without the harriers, then I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Apart from being partly wrong (the RAF harriers weren't there from day 1, they arrived later, the the Argentinian skyhawks had sidewinders just as the Harriers did so were no less well equipped) the point is that the Harrier performed incredibly well, which is in part why it's still used to this day.

      It's one of those few aircraft in the world that has silly amounts of combat action behind it from the Falklands, through to the Gulf War, through to Afghanistan. It's one of the most well proven jets around and my point is simply that it too had similar masses of criticisms against it that the F-35 has, yet still turned out to be incredibly effective and successful.

      I wasn't claiming it was a magical machine that prevented all losses to British forces so I don't know what the relevance of your point about casualties was? - no shit it's a war, thousands of miles from home, greatly outnumbered. Of course there were fucking casualties.

      At the end of the day only 6 harriers (not 10) were lost and none in air to air combat. A 20 - 0 tally air to air in a short engagement (and countless air to ground kills to boot) is kind of a good score for a jet that was apparently a complete waste of time and money, outnumbered, operating in entirely untested conditions, against opponents that were often in pretty much equally modern aircraft with equally modern missiles.

      There's no reason the F-35 for all it's criticisms couldn't prove itself in a similar manner - maybe it wont, I'm not calling it either way, but it seems silly to discount that possibility given that people making such criticisms have been wrong time and time again and aircraft really only tend to get their real actual deserved reputation in hindsight. Any criticism of effectiveness before they see action is just headline grabbing speculation for the most part - and that was my point with the harrier and the same is true of a number of other aircraft through history.

    114. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Proliferation is of course a great way of making a small war large, but aside of that you will probably not accomplish much. It's trivial to put those pilots in bunkers that can withstand pretty much any kind of attack you could possibly field short of MAD.

      The pilot is not your target. Attack soft targets that are sensitive to them. Attack targets which will cause morale problems for the populations around them.

      If you are going to play the dirty 'war by remote control' game expect your enemy to play the dirty 'kill your friends and family' game. Kill their friends, their relatives. Kill people who owe them money, kill people they owe money to. Kill anyone who does business with them. etc.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    115. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but it points out that anything too "different" is looked down on.

      Only by the decision makers in the Military Industrial Complex. That, and the "conservative" (classical definition, not political) don't like different because when people pick different, costs overrun (more than "normal").

    116. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem was the rules of engagement didn't fit the strengths of the aircraft.

      The F4 was designed to fire missiles from a distance
      The ROE was to get close enough that you could verify that it was an enemy aircraft ( still an issue today ).
      When you get that close, you are in gun range, you have to work at it to get back out to missile range.
      And your opponent will not want to let you do that.

      The US has had overwhelming air superiority due to the nature of the conflicts it has been engaged in.
      If the US were to be up against a more equal opponent, air superiority will be harder to achieve and will require work ( aka fighter against fighter. ).

      We have just be lucky that major conflicts have been rare.
      I hope they stay rare, but with all that is going on with China asserting itself in the pacific and Russia, it may not be.

    117. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      We as in the United States of America, as in, without us, Europe would be speaking German right now...

      That, and my grandfather fought for the RAF before America was even in the war, he went over and volunteered in 1940.

      So yea, we...

    118. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Thus far, the kind of nations developed enough to seriously field drones have all mostly figured that it was better to compete economically than militarily. Nukes and Mutually Assured Destruction have, at least so far, put an end to the kind of elbow jostling that dominated the world from the Stone Age to 1945. You get a few proxy wars in the third world, and the occasional land grab like Crimea, but most of the rest of it is saber-rattling.

      Drones are definitely the weapons for asymmetric warfare, where poor groups go up against big countries over one grievance or another (sometimes valid, sometimes not). They can't actually "win" in the conventional sense, but they can aggravate people until things change. Not necessarily the change they wanted. Drones being a key example: developed nations can now kill from a distance with precision (compared to a full-on war).

      Eventually somebody will try asymmetric warfare with drones, and I'm not looking forward to that. It's the beginning of a whole new arms race.

    119. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So, pretty much what we have today? So it's true, war is the terror of the rich, terror is the war of the poor?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    120. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Serbs did this to great effect

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    121. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      So, pretty much what we have today? So it's true, war is the terror of the rich, terror is the war of the poor?

      It hasn't even really got going yet.

      War as a dick-waving contest between nation states is largely over. Its going to get a lot more personal and a lot more involved in the lives of civilians.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    122. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take this one step further.
      The US has won wars, as a result of similar capability, albeit by risking crews.
      The Doolittle Raid allowed the US to orchestrate Midway.
      Without such a decisive battle, the US would have had to give up the secret that they were reading japanese naval ciphers, without crippling the japanese navy.

    123. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      > OTOH, the US is very sensitive to the loss of their manpower. If too many US soldiers die in a war half a globe away, the general sentiment towards the war can very quickly change. This ain't WW2 anymore where something like that could work. Vietnam already showed that it's easy to lose support at home if too many of our boys die in what is then deemed a "pointless war". Drones work beautifully here because nobody gets hurt.

      --And at that point, war becomes a video game. $Side1 sends our robots against $Side2, few to no human beings are in danger, and the war never stops.

      --I remember that I had to register for the draft when I came of age. Using Human fighters and human-controlled battle engines keeps the proper perspective - war is hell, and there really needs to be a damn good reason for it. There's no good reason to let robot armies demolish each other just to keep being replenished, or have one side's robot army deploy against (fairly) defenseless/underarmed humans.

      --Science fiction has gone over this extensively - looks like some people need to read up and learn from it.

      / I ain't no fortunate son, etc

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    124. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, don't worry, you can still play total war. Because in the end, whoever cannot field robots anymore will have to resort to humans. But by then enough damage and atrocities will have been committed by both sides that it's justified. Robots are only the first line of weapons in the arsenal. You can use them rather liberally. Nobody really gives a shit, neither at home nor internationally, if you use robots to "kill" robots. Sure, it's a diplomatic dilemma, but it's not going to make you the next Hitler, once the "war" is over everyone's gonna be friends again.

      Wars will probably become some sort of "testing the waters" in the future. We'll probably see a lot more of them, after we've been hesitant to use war as a means to resolve conflict after those big two (and a few more little ones) in the last century that showed just how easily war can separate human from humanity. But if human isn't involved in war, it's not that bad, right? I mean, those drone attacks, they don't really register as "warfare", do they?

      For now we'll of course only see drones in an asymmetric scenario, where "we" use drones and "they" use low tech. It would be interesting to see them being employed in a symmetric war, I wonder how long it would take from the "robot" stage to escalate to "human" war stage.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    125. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If that means that the dickheads that want nations to go to war have to take up rifles and shoot each other instead of sending hapless soldiers into pointless wars, I'm all for it!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    126. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      We kill them on the ground and with ground to air weapons before we take to the air.

      That's not even close to true. Aircraft are in the air in the earliest stages: infiltrating special ops; conducting reconnaissance, targeting, and BDAs; escorting unarmed platforms.

      We never went to war without overpowering air superiority since, so there were almost no US dogfights since.

      Does it follow that the US will never go to war without air superiority again? Given the current state of the world, can you really foresee no possible scenarios where dogfighting might be necessary?

      I would agree that Afghanistan and Iraq did not have particularly threatening aircraft. Do you really think Russia, China, or some future rising power will be the same scenario? American soldiers have been safe from enemy air attack since Korea. I am willing to pay a little more to ensure it stays that way.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    127. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Moral of the story, though... the people who mocked the F22 as the boondoggle to the F35 should have been fired from the DoD and run out of Congress. The F22 ended up being cheaper and still better (IIRC). There's no excuse for being naive enough to believe "oh yeah, we'll be much cheaper" when building something like the F35.

      Hey, thanks for the recognition! I was predicting precisely this on Slashdot at the time, and the consensus here was that I am an idiot... but it's all good. I'm sure those who advocated replacing F-22s with F-35s will happily volunteer to pay the difference.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    128. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Drones... unlike fighters are NOT 'man rated' This by itself lowers the cost of drones compared to a manned craft by an order of magnitude. If a drone system fails you get a crater in a field, and lose a few tens of millions in hardware. When a man rated system fails you get a crater, lose potentially hundreds of millions in hardware, and lose one or more human assets worth at least as much as the hardware in terms of cash, and time spent training them.

      Japan lost the Pacific air war mostly because they could not replace fighter pilots at a rate that kept pace with demand. They had little problem producing hardware to be flown. This led to minimalistic flight training with depleted their hardware at an ever increasing rate.

      Drones change that equation, as time consuming training is not lost when a hardware asset is lost. How long does it take you to recover from getting blown to shit in EveOnline? Well there ya go. That is what drones are all about.

    129. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Oh his 5 digit id didn't give you a clue.... dbill you should know better.

    130. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      For where you have a technological lead/EW superiority, that is true. However, assuming combat between fairly technologically equal parties, a lot will come down to pilots individual abilities.

    131. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      It's not just a case of having a list of evasive maneuvers. You need fairly complex analysis to evaluate the threats in the environment, and selecting the evasive manuever that best fits, and then adapting that as the action continues.

    132. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      And the autonomous systems, while good enough for a high-altitude recon/ground attack vehicle such as the x47, are not good enough for a complex environment like air-to-air combat. One of the problems is computational abilities, another is even greater susceptibility to EW than human-piloted aircrafts.

      Also, the programmed parameters can't hope to match everything that can happen during a mission.

    133. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      No, you really don't.

      If you're dogfighting fighter jets there's a high probability there's not going to be much besides clouds, drones and jets. Keep track of your own and if you happen to crash into a jet, well, good one. And just work with probabilities, 19/20 you're going to be right... because you programmed it like that!

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    134. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Given the current state of the world, can you really foresee no possible scenarios where dogfighting might be necessary?

      So the military is to not just face any likely threat, but every possible threat, no matter how unlikely. The military is already about the same as the rest of the world combined. How much more do you think we need?

    135. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Given the current state of the world, can you really foresee no possible scenarios where dogfighting might be necessary?

      So the military is to not just face any likely threat, but every possible threat, no matter how unlikely. The military is already about the same as the rest of the world combined. How much more do you think we need?

      I can't tell if you're trolling or just... nevermind.

      Clearly that is not what I believe. And I am quite sure you know that.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    136. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You asked if I really could foresee "no possible" scenarios. That's quite a strict standard. If that's not what you believe, you were trolling when you trolled for my answer to your rhetorical question.

      But no, there is no reasonable scenario where the US fights a war without air superiority. China isn't a military enemy. A war between primary trading partners is unreasonable. And Russian war seems unlikely.

  5. Or it could be used for something else... by Megol · · Score: 1

    Like verifying targeting systems? Or perhaps (I don't know if it is needed) checking radar response to compensate for stealth techniques?

    1. Re:Or it could be used for something else... by gtall · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Stealth techniques? For an air craft carrier? I give up, what would those be? The U.S. Navy's stealthiest surface ships are low to the water, and have very few sharp edges. I presume you've seen an air craft carrier up close, yes?

    2. Re:Or it could be used for something else... by dbIII · · Score: 2

      There was a Tom Clancy novel about that sort of thing. It had a premise of flawless execution of tasks by thousands of people on the US side and a combination of stone age technology (despite having satellites!) plus utter incompetence on the other.
      Sometimes I just wish Clancy would read Conrad's "The Secret Agent" from around a century ago and either give up in despair or take it as inspiration to improve.

    3. Re:Or it could be used for something else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you ask me, he's only going to get worse from here on out...

    4. Re:Or it could be used for something else... by tsqr · · Score: 2

      Sometimes I just wish Clancy would read Conrad's "The Secret Agent" from around a century ago and either give up in despair or take it as inspiration to improve.

      That would be quite a feat. Guess you missed the the news of Clancy's death last year.

    5. Re:Or it could be used for something else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Stealth techniques? For an air craft carrier? I give up, what would those be? The U.S. Navy's stealthiest surface ships are low to the water, and have very few sharp edges. I presume you've seen an air craft carrier up close, yes?"

      I presume, you have not seen the Philadelphia Experiment.

    6. Re:Or it could be used for something else... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      It's to be used for a photo op. Soon we'll have a picture of the fake aircraft carrier flying through the clouds with the President of Iran and the Supreme Leader on the front of the flight deck, air streaming through their air/turban, holding hands and shouting "We're the kings of the wooooooorld!."

    7. Re:Or it could be used for something else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *hair

  6. The only difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...between a mock up and the real thing is if your planes can actually take off and land.

    1. Re: The only difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which in the case of the f35 is a resounding "occasionally"!

  7. there's another by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the 2nd one they've built? The first one is an office building and only looks like a carrier from above. We never figured that one out either. I couldn't find a link because "Iran aircraft carrier building" only brings up this story now. lol Maybe it was china that did it? I can't remember.

  8. Movie props by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's probably for a movie in the making. To get some footage of the carrier, the movie company is building their own. It's going to be filmed in that area, so its build near there to avoid shipping (haha) costs. Also, labor is cheap in that region.

    1. Re:Movie props by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why do you come with logic and reason into a conspiracy theory discussion?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Propaganda? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

    I think Iran has computers and 3D artists, and blowing up a CGI USA aircraft carrier would be cheaper and indistinguishable from the real thing on tv screens.

    1. Re:Propaganda? by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could be just a movie in general, doesn't have to be propaganda.

      Hollywood used to do stuff like this all the time, it wasn't because we were actually going to blow up a russian sub.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only propaganda i see is this article, gotta keep those US stories flowing about how bad and scarey Iran is and which one of their leaders is about to unleash armageddon this week

    3. Re:Propaganda? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's just not as effective to train your boarding parties with a CGI as it is with a physical mock up. I'm not saying they are actually going to try and board a Carrier, but when some numb-nuts cousin of somebody who can kill or disapear you on a whim says to do something stupid, you just do it.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  10. Don't laugh - worry by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's very likely to be for training purposes.

    1. Re:Don't laugh - worry by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Especially to train drone pilots.

    2. Re:Don't laugh - worry by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Training? Training what? Attacking an aircraft carrier?

      You are aware that this could be done not only cheaper but also a lot more stealthy, right? Training something like a raid on a carrier is something you train away from prying eyes, simply because surprise is your key element. Because surprise is probably the only way you can possibly get close enough to one, when the enemy is expecting an attack he won't try to discourage that alleged fisher boat that seems to have gone astray, he'll simply sink it.

      Or maybe that's the goal? Goad the US into sinking a hapless fisher boat and then make them the bad guy who attacks civilian vessels without provocation? Someone hand me a roll of tinfoil?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Don't laugh - worry by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Goad the US into sinking a hapless fisher boat and then make them the bad guy who attacks civilian vessels

      Get off your Dad's slashdot account and stop making him look like an idiot that never heard about the Iranian Airbus being shot down. Look like the bad guys indeed - as if that hasn't already happened without caring about consequences.

    4. Re:Don't laugh - worry by Ottawakismet · · Score: 1

      No, training is a very likely activity. I dont know what you mean by surprising a carrier, that doesn't seem to make sense. How exactly do you think a carrier prevents anything from getting close to it? They don't have force fields. A whack of missiles are essentially impossible to prevent from reaching a large target. It makes total sense that they would practice tactics to attack a carrier. Its an effective tactic to practice attacks on mockups before they could imagine they might be able to do it at all effectively. the US, Japan, other countries do these kind of exercises, and sometimes actually sink ships in wargames.

    5. Re:Don't laugh - worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "simply because surprise is your key element."

      That's nothing if it misses the almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

  11. Or it could be used for something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like verifying targeting systems?
      HTML co ban

  12. Go one better than China? by auric_dude · · Score: 4, Interesting
    1. Re:Go one better than China? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I guess this shows how seriously they consider the threat of US Carriers.

    2. Re:Go one better than China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am from Iran , when USA government just talk about table and its ... , what do you want ??? you threat iran , iran react . Israel treat Iran , iran threat back . iran threat israel , Israel threat back . this is all politic , they all is evil , dost make difference Israel politician or Iranian politician or USA politician. please please please understand this . understanding this point will make huge difference in our world

    3. Re:Go one better than China? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      All government is evil. That's what the founders of the United States said back when they revolted against the rule of England.

      "Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine

      Sadly most people don't feel this way.

    4. Re:Go one better than China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need soldiers to fight a war, but you need politicians to start one.

      I forgot from what movie/tv-series this quote came from.

  13. Google Maps... by tiny69 · · Score: 1

    ...is a little out of date. https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

    --
    Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
  14. Fake Boat? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Seriously? The best you could do is "fake boat"?

    Here's my theory, They've come up with some fancy new weapons system that they think can down a Nimitz-class, and they want something that actually looks like one for the demo.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Fake Boat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? The best you could do is "fake boat"?

      Here's my theory, They've come up with some fancy new weapons system that they think can down a Nimitz-class, and they want something that actually looks like one for the demo.

      Supersonic Cruise missles that are hidden in a launcher that looks just like a shipping container will do the job nicely. These exist now and will probable keep Carriers hundreds of miles from shore if combat breaks out. The naval defense systems may take out some of them, but not dozens launched at the same time.

    2. Re:Fake Boat? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Seriously? The best you could do is "fake boat"?

      Here's my theory, They've come up with some fancy new weapons system that they think can down a Nimitz-class, and they want something that actually looks like one for the demo.

      Supersonic Cruise missles that are hidden in a launcher that looks just like a shipping container will do the job nicely. These exist now and will probable keep Carriers hundreds of miles from shore if combat breaks out. The naval defense systems may take out some of them, but not dozens launched at the same time.

      Iran doesn't need supersonic cruise missiles they already have a carriers worst night mare in service. Two words: supercavitating torpedo.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoot_%28missile%29

      Good luck installing a phalanx system under the water line.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  15. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    No. I predict some sort of staged attack, which will be broadcast as a triumphal attack on the Great Satan.
    Because the Iranian people are nearly as daft as Americans, to judge by the election results.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  16. gotta be certified to build a carrier, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This doesnt make sense. What do you mean its not a real aircraft carrier and Iran can't build a real aircraft carrier? If you can land a plane on it it's a fuckiing aircraft carrier. It doesn't need nuclear propulsion to be an aircraft carrier. It about the size of the biggest aircraft carriers from WWII.

    Of course I don't know anything about it, but a bunch of FUD from the us navy doesnt mean anything either.

    1. Re:gotta be certified to build a carrier, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can just land an airplane on it then you've build a floating landing strip. The most important part of a carrier is the ability to launch airplanes. Ideally one should also be able to repair, refuel, and rearm the airplanes. You also need airplanes designed to handle the additional stresses from launching and landing on a carrier. In addition to not having any experience designing the required systems for modern airframes, Iran lacks the modern airframes to use with a carrier.
      Nuclear power is not required- I'd say it would be a poor choice for any Iranian ship as a) they have access to large amounts of oil, and b) the environmental disaster when the ship is inevitably sunk would be tremendous and probably very close to their port. American carriers benefit from the range nuclear provides as they cover the globe. An Iranian carrier would not need this range as they would only be projected to go from launch at port to about halfway through seaworthiness trials.

      Of course I don't know anything about it

      This is the only part of your post that was accurate.

      Summary- yes, it's not a real aircraft carrier, and yes Iran can't build a real aircraft carrier. HTH. HAND.

  17. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No. I predict some sort of staged attack, which will be broadcast as a triumphal attack on the Great Satan. Because the Iranian people are nearly as daft as Americans, to judge by the election results.

    Amazing how daft a people can be when their media and their political parties are all bought and paid for.

  18. radar and tracking test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    it's to test their radar and tracking systems. the mock ship helps them create a radar signature which will be similiar to the real ship. the painted number is there to test their optical recognition systems.

    the article is propaganda to show that "the enemy" is no match to the homeland's capabilities.

  19. Lobbydot's Anti-Iran Policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iran here. Once I thought Slashdot is a *neutral* news for nerds site, but now it seems it is just another funny tail of the nonsense emitting propaganda machine.
    Granted that life in Iran is super-funny (recently gov. vowed proudly that they are squashing anti-filter softwares) but I wonder don't any Slashdoters ask themselves why the US officials are *exposing* this very FACT(?) now in the middle of the IRAN-5+1 negotiations? Just search 'Iran' in this very site and see for yourself the flood of insolent news about we poor bloody Iranians

    1. Re:Lobbydot's Anti-Iran Policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, all of Iran got together and made a post to slashdot. This is proof that they are insane, or at least have way too much time on their hands.

  20. Reaction to this story from elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love the comments from the crazies out there that Iran is going to use this to con American pilots into landing on their fake carrier so they can capture them, or that they're going to sail it into a naval port to detonate an explosive. It's a freaking mockup that may not even be seaworthy and definitely wouldn't be mistaken for an actual carrier. Idiots.

  21. Busted Down Around O'Connelly Corners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When police kicked in the door to his University District apartment on April 19, there, on a couch, lit by a flickering TV, next to several spray-paint cans on the floor, not far from a small stash of cocaine, near two crack pipes on the coffee table, reposed the remains of the rock musician.

  22. Movie prop for Airbus Flight 655 by rjejr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This was debunked days ago, its a movie prop about the US shooting down an Iranian commercial fight in 1988. Don't the Slashdot editors have access to Google?

    1. Re:Movie prop for Airbus Flight 655 by Ly4 · · Score: 1

      As others have noted: citation needed. I can only find other comments making the same claim, no articles.

      Also, the ship that shot down 655 was a guided missile cruiser, not a carrier. While there's no requirement that a movie be historically accurate, a cruiser mock-up would be much, much cheaper.

    2. Re:Movie prop for Airbus Flight 655 by careysub · · Score: 1

      Here is the source for the "debunking": an Iranian news site - Mashreghnews.ir asserting that this is a prop for a movie about the shoot-down of Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 (hope you have Google translate activated).

      However Flight 655 was shot down by the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49), and the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier was not involved. The U.S was not about to deploy an aircraft carrier battle group to the narrow, mine-filled waters of the Straits of Hormuz, nor would that kind of firepower have been any use for the tanker traffic policing mission. So it seems the Iranian news site is probably passing along disinformation (or rank speculation) about the test target ship being built.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:Movie prop for Airbus Flight 655 by dbIII · · Score: 2

      nor would that kind of firepower have been any use for the tanker traffic policing mission

      It was a very stupid "show the flag" political exercise probably dreamed up by a White House intern - no minesweeper was sent so after the first mine contact the tanker under escort was sent in front! The first tanker set off several mines but was able to continue, tankers are huge so could take a few more mines than a relatively light naval vessel. To make things even more ridiculous the mines Iran had bought and deployed dated back to Tsarist Russia!

      It would be a comedy if not for the tragic mistake with Flight 655 and the subsequent payback bombing of a Pan Am 747 over Scotland.

      USS Nimitz aircraft carrier was not involved

      Even the movie "Apollo 13" had a few things made up to add drama so it makes sense to have a more impressive looking ship in the shots.

    4. Re:Movie prop for Airbus Flight 655 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S was not about to deploy an aircraft carrier battle group to the narrow, mine-filled waters of the Straits of Hormuz

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/he...

      See, they go through there... Even better.

      http://www.uscarriers.net/cvn6...

      1997
      November 26, USS Nimitz pulled into Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates, for an eight-day visit to Dubai after participating in exercise Neon Falcon off the coast of Bahrain, Nov. 15-25. From Dec. 6-10, the ship participated in exercise Nautical Artist with the Saudis; and Eager Mace with the Kuwaitis from Dec. 13-24.

    5. Re:Movie prop for Airbus Flight 655 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What is interesting is how much bullshit the military spokespeople said about it, and how it is still being used for US propaganda purposes and to justify military spending. Apparently much of the media will just take what the US military says at face value and not even bother to verify it with a quick google search.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Movie prop for Airbus Flight 655 by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Since when have movies been accurate? An air craft carrier is more iconic, so you can bet it'd be used for a movie.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  23. Boat anchors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, at least the barge floats, while the F35s are only good as boat anchors.

  24. No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! by Archtech · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The mock-up, which American officials described as more like a barge than a warship, has no nuclear propulsion system..."

    Duh, how could it have nuclear propulsion when two-thirds of the world's diplomats and spooks (the USA's own plus its faithful servants, that is) spend most of their time ensuring that Iran never gets any nuclear technology, no matter how simple and peaceful?

    OTOH, a moment's thought reveals that it doesn't need nuclear propulsion, whose main advantage is the ability to sail around the world several times without refuelling. It's unlikely that Iran wishes to indulge in "force projection" in the Gulf of Mexico or the Pacific, since it's actually a very peaceable nation. (Please check the history books before violently disagreeing).

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    1. Re:No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right. Iran projects extreme violence inward at it's own people. Or at anybody foolish enough to be within their borders.

      That sort of thing results in a very 'peaceful' nation.

    2. Re:No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to the missing nuclear propulsion system (or any propulsion system), the ship is also missing catapults, arresting gear, elevators, or anything else that would allow it to function at all. That was silly bit of phrasing in the article.

      It's unlikely that Iran wishes to indulge in "force projection"

      And that's a bit of silly phrasing as well. Iran isn't even remotely capable of the kind of "force projection" you're worrying about here. Their wishes are immaterial.

    3. Re:No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Nuclear propulsion enables you to go fast and each knot of extra speed is considerable less wear and tear on landing aircraft. If Iran were really serious about protecting what legitimate interests they have, Helicopters and STOL aircraft based on more modest carriers would be a better fit.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! by Ottawakismet · · Score: 1

      A nuclear propulsion system is only useful if the carrier is intended to go anywhere. It's mostly likely built to be sunk.

    5. Re:No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! by hey! · · Score: 1

      You made the point I was going to make. The thing doesn't need nuclear propulsion because it's not a functioning aircraft carrier.

      If we think, however, the Iranians are building this thing because they're dumb, we're the dumb ones. They have a use for it, we just haven't figured out what that is.

      The idea of an PR stunt or movie prop doesn't make that much sense to me. The thing is *huge*, over 700 feet long if the NYT article is correct. . Surely they could pay some special effects shop somewhere to animate a pretty good CGI Nimitz for them at a fraction of the cost.

      So it seems to me that they probably have a use for an actual physical model of a US supercarrier that's on the same order of magnitude for size. I have no idea what that is, but if I had to takea wild guess I'd be thinking about Iran's drone and missile programs. Perhaps they're testing autonomous aircraft that can locate specific ships within a carrier battle group.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! by Archtech · · Score: 1

      The Iranians are a subtle people. Maybe its only purpose is to tie up thousands of American intelligence analysts and generals racking their brains to think what it's for. To the detriment of useful work. It might also deter the Pentagon from sending its carriers too close to Iran, just in case. That would be a bonus.

      There's even an amusing moral: stick your nose into other people's business, where it doesn't belong, and you may end up with a severe headache and nothing to show for it.

      Come to think of it, the Chinese and the Russians have a reputation for subtlety too, as well as extremely long memories. Looks as if Uncle Sam is making the wrong kind of enemies these days.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    7. Re:No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the boycott be such a problem? Aircraft carriers aren't exactly small. You don't need fancy technology. At this scale, you just build a classic steam engine, except for the heat source which is nuclear. If "steam engine" sounds primitive, that's still how modern electricity plants work, coal and nuclear alike. Heat makes steam makes generator turn. And instead of turning a generator, you can also turn the prop shafts of your carrier.

      But considering that Iran has plenty of access to oil, and large engines can burn low-quality bunker oil, there's no good reason for them to use nuclear propulsion. Or have nuclear plants - that's how we know they're building nuclear weapons. Doesn't mean they're aggressive, though - they might have noticed the neighborhood and seen what happened to Ukraine after they gave up their nuclear weapons. Promises are paper. Russia has shown the power of having both nukes and oil. Iran will like to have the same.

  25. Any connection between the F-22 and the F-35? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any connection between the F-22 and the F-35?

    The F-22 seems finished enough, or so is my impression anyway. :) Could they possibly have shared the same budget somehow?

    1. Re:Any connection between the F-22 and the F-35? by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      Any connection between the F-22 and the F-35?

      The F-22 seems finished enough, or so is my impression anyway. :) Could they possibly have shared the same budget somehow?

      The F-22 is American only. It is by far the top air superiority fighter in the world on paper, although, it is too new to have been challenged by anyone or prove itself in combat. However, one did sneak up on some Iranian fighters unnoticed and send them scurrying home (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/19/us-pilot-scares-iranians-top-gun-worthy-stunt-you-/). The F-22 is complete and operational as an air superiority fighter. A ground attack version is either on the way or functional.

      The F-35 is a multinational effort. It is meant to come in various configurations and provide a variety of roles. It is meant to replace the F-18 for the Navy (aircraft carrier landing, air superiority/attack), the F-15 for the Air Force (air superiority, ground attack), and the Harrier for the Marine Core (vertical take off and landing, ground support). It is over budget and non-operational.

      Obama has cancelled the superior, completed, and operational F-22 and directed some of the funds toward the incomplete, problem plagued F-35.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Any connection between the F-22 and the F-35? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Obama has cancelled the superior, completed, and operational F-22 and directed some of the funds toward the incomplete, problem plagued F-35.

      I was a huge critic of that move, and said this would happen. But let's be honest here:

      Obama was among those leading the charge to kill the program, but:
      - Congress killed the F-22's funding
      - Senate votes had more to do with where production was located than political affiliation
      - SecDef Gates wanted the F-22 dead
      - The JCS and many others in the Pentagon supported him
      - John McCain co-sponsored the amendment that killed funding

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  26. Who's Crazier? by wjcofkc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Government leadership on both sides could use an extended stay in a psychiatric facility. I thought US/Iran relations were supposed to be warming? With active gestures from both sides? In regards to that, I can think of stupider moves Iran could have made but this is dumb and disappointing all the same. When things progressed so far that President Obama and President Rouhani spoke by phone - a major accomplishment on both sides - I hoped things would keep getting better from there. That they would open up their nuclear efforts and that we could then lift sanctions with a real friendship on the horizon. What happened to all that? It was recent and a major news story for sometime. I guess I was naive. If the nations of the world could only humble themselves before one another... In most cases I suppose religion is the big barrier there. The planet is (figuratively) shrinking at an exponential rate and if we don't learn to actually truly get along as a planet of independent nations, we will see a mass thinning of the population at some point, under unfavorable circumstances.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Who's Crazier? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Relations have indeed improved. They have gone from the brink of war all the way to a simmering mutual hate and loathing. That's still an improvement.

  27. Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google news doesn't give me anything like this? Would you like to share your links, please?

    1. Re:Link? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      links, please?

      Here, Found it on Google.

    2. Re:Link? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Try www.google.com.

    3. Re:Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't trust that URL ...

    4. Re:Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep clicking and not going anywhere. Are you sure that's a real site?

  28. Marcy Wheeler suggests? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    America should immediately drop all other programs and start building Barges painted to look like aircraft carriers?

    Seriously folks we get it. You fscking HATE America so much that you'll come up with any idiotic comparison you can to make us look bad, even false comparisons that are a fine display of stupidity, inability to think logically, and a dandy non sequitur to boot.

    I wonder how a war between these barges and jet fighters would turn out?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Marcy Wheeler suggests? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      oh that's rich.

      Isn't what's happening here the exact OPPOSITE of what you are claiming. This is US propaganda trying to make Iran look bad because you guys hate them so much.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    2. Re:Marcy Wheeler suggests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I dont quite see how this is making the US look bad? Care to explain?

    3. Re:Marcy Wheeler suggests? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      oh that's rich.

      Isn't what's happening here the exact OPPOSITE of what you are claiming. This is US propaganda trying to make Iran look bad because you guys hate them so much.

      Thank you so very much for exact proof of my point. If you read the summary and the blog referenced in it, you would read the words "So which country is crazier, Iran for building a fake boat, or the US for funding a never-ending jet program?"

      So tell me now, what is the US propaganda machine that is trying to make Iran look bad by calling the US crazy? You are living in a Fox News like bubble, where you only see what you want to see and you only hear what you want to hear. Your hatred of the US is that strong. And not that I expect to have any influence on that hatred, because your cognitive dissonance is pretty strong.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Marcy Wheeler suggests? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Read the article. The author says the US is crazier than the Iranians because we are building a jet fighter, while they are building a barge.

      To be specific, she's asking a question that is looking for one particular answer.

      I

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Marcy Wheeler suggests? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      You sir are troubled.

      You're trapped by your mirrors.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    6. Re:Marcy Wheeler suggests? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You sir are troubled.

      You're trapped by your mirrors.

      Is that the best you can do?

      Explain how in the story the author declares that the US is as insane - or more so than Iran - explain how that is the Pro American propaganda you accuse it of being.

      You wrote it:

      This is US propaganda trying to make Iran look bad because you guys hate them so much.

      Otherwise, I'll just assume that all you have is gratuitous insults.

      Because that is all you've shown so far.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Marcy Wheeler suggests? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Actually, I was refering to your insanity.

      You have clearly proven it yet again.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    8. Re:Marcy Wheeler suggests? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was refering to your insanity.

      You have clearly proven it yet again.

      You have no argument, so you resort to yet one more insult. Do you actually think that your inability to form a cogent argument somehow makes you right?

      I feel pity for you.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:Marcy Wheeler suggests? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Sigh, USians.

      I have no argument because I'm not arguing.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    10. Re:Marcy Wheeler suggests? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Other threads have mentioned that this has already been debunked and that this is actually a movie prop. So, does that make everyone in Hollywood who has ever had anything to do with building a fake boat insane?

  29. Or.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could simply build it to study tactic on how to better blow it up, should it attack them. You know. Like the US does in its wargame and planning. Heck some US department had plan to blow their own people to start a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods). It is just that the US is a bit more discreet. In fact speaking of propaganda, when it relatess to the Iran, we see far far more jingoistic propaganda coming from the US (and israel) including murder commited or foreign nationals than from Iran. just sayin'.

  30. Tourism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Star tourist attraction of their new Imperialist theme park with fiscal cliff roller coasters and WMD hunts for the children. It will also be the set of a grand Farsi remake of Steven Seagal's Under Siege, which will be premiered at the Deserted Outdoor Theater in Sinai Desert.

    1. Re:Tourism. by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      [movie] set

      Looks like I was right.

      For every 10 morbidly fascinating conspiracy theories, there is one possibility that is most likely, boring and correct.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  31. What, what, what? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is the summary on about? These seem pretty easy:

    "So which country is crazier: Iran, for building a fake boat, or the US for funding a never-ending jet program?""

    Crazy? The never-ending transfer of wealth from the American people to the military-industrial complex is exactly what the F35 is designed to do. I mean, hello, duplicate engine contracts? Stop trying to pretend this is primarily a weapons platform - it makes you look naive.

    Cmdr. Jason Salata. "We're not sure what Iran hopes to gain by building this. If it is a big propaganda piece, to what end?"

    Seriously? This is military intelligence?

    Let's play this out. You go and attack Iran with a bunch of battleships and you expect them to come out and counter-attack with their battleships and aircraft? Of course not - they don't have the resources and so they need to have an asymmetrical counter-attack plan. Here's one: get some small boats out to the aircraft carrier under dark of night and board it. Have your men know the layout of the ship like the back of their hands, and kill all the sailors aboard, except for the ones you need to keep alive to extract any command codes that may be required to operate the free battleship. Start with your 'special forces' to disable the counter-attack resources and then overwhelm it with manpower. Make your enemy either destroy their own asset or lose it.

    Propaganda piece? Come on.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:What, what, what? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I wonder if those speedboats could disable a carrier more directly? Pack with explosives, kamikaze into target ship. They can go fast and are cheap enough to swarm. Thick as the armor is, a boatload of explosives hitting at seventy miles per hour must be able to do some damage. They can pack a lot more explosives than a conventional torpedo.

    2. Re:What, what, what? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Thick as the armor is

      The last US aircraft carrier with any armor at all (and it was not even as thick as a main battle tank's) was designed in WW2 and retired decades ago. None of our naval vessels has armor. Something as shitty as the small craft that devastated USS Cole would blast a hole just as big in a carrier, only there are 20 times as many crew standing behind a shell of about the same thickness - essentially an egg shell.

    3. Re:What, what, what? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      So the only way a carrier could defend against such an attack effectively would be to stay far out to sea, where there is plenty of space in which to intercept attackers. Shouldn't be a problem. Planes are fast.

    4. Re:What, what, what? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Rockets and torpedoes can be mounted on a boat easily enough. Basically an updated WW2 PT boat. Kamikaze attacks are known in Iran but it's so much easier to motivate your troops if there is "some" chance of survival.

    5. Re:What, what, what? by fnj · · Score: 1

      And plenty of space for submarines to hide in. Since Nautilus in the 1950s, aircraft carriers have been nothing but targets for nuclear submarines. Time after time the latter have proved they can move at will in the heart of a carrier battle group undetected.

      Battleships had lots of armor but carried their own destructive charges with them, known as magazines. Many of them blew up spectacularly from a single hit.

      Aircraft carriers also carry their own destructive charges with them (bigger magazines than any battleship). Supposedly their airplanes and defensive screen protect them, except both have shown themselves to be little better than magic incantations.

  32. India outdoes Iran by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Funny
    When it comes to building mock-ups, there is no one to beat India.

    It seems to have built a complete mock-up of a democracy, complete with a mock-up judiciary, a mock up legislature and even a mock up of a functioning economy.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:India outdoes Iran by Jmc23 · · Score: 5, Informative

      When it comes to building mock-ups, there is no one to beat the good ol USA

      It seems to have built a complete mock-up of a democracy, complete with a mock-up judiciary, a mock up legislature and even a mock up of a functioning economy.

      FTFY

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    2. Re:India outdoes Iran by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Touche' [takes a bow]

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  33. "who is crazier" is not a relevant question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But by all means, carry on your entertainment.

  34. training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how else would you train to capture a carrier?

  35. Fuck Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how this story gets morphed into an anti-F35 rant. The Iranians are probably building the mock aircraft carrier for some type of training range. It's that whole train as you fight thing. As for the F35; the U.S. is probably pretty smart since most of the airplanes in the U.S. inventory are reaching the end of their service life. The F35 is also not a "never-ending" program. The program is supposed to last 55 years. Spending 1 trillion dollars over 55 years means nothing to the United States. Take 1 trillion dollars and divide it by 55. Then take that figure and compare it to U.S. GDP.

  36. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by graphius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    just to clarify, which side were you talking about?

  37. On a related note by Jmc23 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Satellite imagery has spotted the US recreating famous landmarks, all obviously fake and scaled down, in the middle of the desert.

    Who are these silly yanks trying to fool. To what nefarious propagandic purposes will they be used?

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  38. More Realistic than China Lake's Sea Site Facility by careysub · · Score: 1

    The summary is full of stuff, but I won't say what.

    The United States Navy has, as its primary air-delivered weapons test site - also used for training, a facility out in the Mojave Desert called the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station. On that test base (larger than Rhode Island) is a test location called "R-Range" (R is for radar). Out on R-Range is a sort of ship shaped hill called Sea Site that bristles with ship electronics. It is used for testing targeting systems and training -- and it is intended to be a reasonably realistic simulation of a ship equipped with all manner of electronic gear, radar, communications, electronic counter-measures, etc. And it is a hill out in the desert.

    This somewhat sub-scale ship is a far more realistic test and training target than that hill out in the desert.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  39. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The US, of course. In Iran, you needn't buy any media, the law makes sure already that they stay in Islamic line.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  40. So? by gman003 · · Score: 2

    Even if it is a military training aid*, it's not like this isn't completely standard practice. America's own 11th Armored Cavalry is an entire regiment of troops using equipment modified to look and act like enemy equipment (still Soviet, both because most of our enemies are still using Soviet or Soviet-derived equipment, and because it seems like Russia wants to start WW3 again). They're used for training - every other army unit cycles through, "fighting" against them in a really, really advanced version of laser tag, with the 11th acting as the "opposing force", mimicking as best they can the enemy's tactics and capabilities.

    Iran and US are currently enemies. We're not at war yet, and I hope it doesn't come to that, but expecting neither side to train for that war is preposterous.

    * Given that it's size is wrong, it seems ill-designed for military training. If they were training for an air or sea assault, they would need a properly-sized target, and if they were training to try to capture it, they'd need more detailed internals. It seems more likely to be prop for a propaganda film.

  41. Oceans Eleven by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 5, Funny

    Their plan is to come in at night and steal the real Nimitz, leaving the duplicate in its place

    1. Re:Oceans Eleven by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      The Philadelphia Experiment that almost worked?

    2. Re:Oceans Eleven by Argos · · Score: 1

      More Pinky and the Brain than Ocean's Eleven.

  42. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, they may even dismiss Creationism.

  43. Re:More Realistic than China Lake's Sea Site Facil by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    You guys have it all wrong.

    Iran needs a little bitty aircraft carrier to land it's little bitty aircraft..

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  44. Storing the plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this is where they are storing the Malaysian flight they hijacked?

  45. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by flyneye · · Score: 1

    I follow you, then they get bombed and martyred and all Iran gets psyched for a war.
    BUT NO, I think they are just bored out of their heads and went over to Instructables, found a project and built a boat.
    Kinda like building a model rocket or camel or something. Maybe it will be full of model Iranians so it can only look like theyre martyring brave fighters.
    Or maybe its just for an Iranian TV knockoff of McHales Navy. They are pretty modern after all!

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  46. I wonder,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are they building, in a shipyard, under an obviously phony large carrier deck?

  47. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    The Progressive side. That they suit up on opposing teams for election theater is purely for hysterical raisins.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  48. Why all the hating on Iran? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get the impression that too many think of Iran as pathetic, they've started doing their best to chill the world police out. There are very few stable countries in the middle east and this seems to be one of the best.

  49. Models and paper are cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Models and paper are cheap. If you are going to build something really complicated, build a small scale model where you can test out what you are trying to do. Models are cheap compared to building the real thing, then finding out it doesn't work, then fix, build, break, fix, build, break. You don't know what Iran is building inside its fake-o-Nimitz. Are they even using steel or is it made of wood? If Iran spent more than $1million I would be disappointed. That the US has already spend a $ million-million on this plane that has problems is good for Lockheed Martin shareholders and no one else. Americans can laugh at the 'Target Barge' Iran is building, and Iranians can laugh at the 'Money Pit' America is building. Neither of which will do what is being asked.

  50. Training Device by EverlastingPhelps · · Score: 1

    It's pretty obviously for training. Even if Iran wanted to do some sort of fake film, it would be easier to do it digitally (and that is how they have done it -- poorly -- before.) It's much more likely that this is a training target, and not for shooting at. The painted marks are the key. This is for training on and testing optical devices. They want to train their people -- probably their speedboat fleet -- on how to recognize and pick out the carrier in a fleet.

  51. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    There is no "progressive" side. That would imply progress, and that we are not making.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  52. Iran tired of waiting for a Top Gun sequel by gcerullo · · Score: 0

    This is nothing more than the Iranians tired of waiting for Hollywood to produce a Top Gun sequel that takes place in the middle east.

  53. Technological parity? Not really..... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, both the Germans and Japanese used bolt-repeaters, and both were at technological (though not industrial) parity with the USA.

    The Western Allies had the Germans and Japanese beat in electronics (primitive electronic computers, widespread employment of mechanical computers for fire control machines, proximity fuses, and radar), aerospace design (particularly by war's end), and practical nuclear fission.

    The Germans had the Allies beat in a select few technological areas, rocketry and chemical weapons come to mind. The former of course came too late to affect the result and the latter was never used for fear of retaliation. The Japanese didn't beat the Allies in any technological realm, theoretical or practical, though they did have a few bits of engineering (the Type 93 torpedo) that came as a very rude surprise for the Allies.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  54. Maybe they will sink the mockup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...as internal propaganda, as in "look, we can sink the mighty amerikan carriers!".
    Reminds me of "Comical Ali"...

    1. Re:Maybe they will sink the mockup... by Swampash · · Score: 1

      If a shooting war involving aircraft carriers ever starts in the Persian Gulf, the only question will be "how long did it take for all the carriers to go straight to the bottom?"

  55. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by Ottawakismet · · Score: 1

    Probably less as a propaganda attempt, and more likely as war exercises. Its a totally logical policy to use mockups as practice. The US and other countries do this all the time. Its probably a very good use of limited Iranian defense money, as it will give them a much better idea of how to attack a carrier in an actual hot conflict.

  56. Common sense? by LanceUppercut · · Score: 1

    Lats time I checked, American Nazis were carrying out military training exercises in mock-ups of Russian cities they purposely built. Why wouldn't Iran military want to build a mock-up of American aircraft carrier for the very same purposes? Most likely this is indeed a Target Barge, exactly what the simpletons in the Fifth Fleet suggested, except that they lack the intelligence to understand that the joke is actually on them.

  57. So which country is crazier by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

    Which country is crazier, the one defending its own bounds or the one going half-way around the world to attack it?

  58. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    Because the Iranians are all peaceful and stuff, right?

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  59. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    There you go again with the rationality. Listen, tough guy: it's all farce. "Progress" means, far from effecting improvements, talking about improvements as if they had been effected.
    Our government consists of no-talent rodeo clowns who figure that they can utter the word "jobs" and trigger 1,000 hires.
    The actual mechanisms of economics in particular, and reality in general, elude these pencil-necks.
    Redistribute power, not wealth, and see if the sign on the slope coefficient doesn't flip positive.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  60. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Redistribute power, not wealth, and see if the sign on the slope coefficient doesn't flip positive.

    You say that as if it would happen just by sheer will, as if you can separate power from wealth. The two are permanently fused in this country as it is exactly how the true ruling class want it and nobody has the power to change that. Your own claim is no different from your own statement of

    utter the word "jobs" and trigger 1,000 hires

  61. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Redistribute power, not wealth...

    :-) You funny! Try crowdfunding that, or kickstarting, or whatever they call it, and see how far you get..

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  62. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    An excellent job of reading half the sentence, sir. Stay beautiful, hear?

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  63. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    When dividing by zero, whatever remains is irrelevant... You can't separate leprechauns from unicorns.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  64. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he quoted the impossible part, the rest of the sentence was speculation on what one could do upon accomplishing teh impossible.

  65. Get a grip folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The aircraft carrier mock up will be used for making a movie directed jointly by Iranian and American film makers. It is about USS Vincennes shutting down an Iran Air Flight 655 over the Persian Gulf on 3rd of July 1988.

  66. I forgot to mention by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It was a very stupid "show the flag" political exercise probably dreamed up by a White House intern - no minesweeper was sent so after the first mine contact the tanker under escort was sent in front! The first tanker set off several mines but was able to continue

    All of the above was witnessed by a large press corps that very flown in for the occasion - hence the very stupid "show the flag" political exercise that did not go so well as intended. If you are going to butt your nose into the middle of a war (escorting a tanker hastily reflagged from Iraq to Kuwait the night before) it's a good idea at least put on a helmet.

  67. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    Fairy nuff, magical boy.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  68. Looks more like a Russian or Chinese ski-jump deck by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

    This doesn't look like a Nimitz-class. It more closely resembles the deck of a Russian or Chinese carrier with a ski-jump front end.

    If Iran is scoring new carrier-capable aircraft, where do you think they'll get them and what kind will they be? Want to bet they STOL using a ramp system?

  69. Drone Target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The shape and size makes me think it is being built as a practice drone target. Imagine a swarm of weaponized drones that use image recognition to zero in on this big shape in the water... Hope the Phalanx is turned on.

  70. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by macsuibhne · · Score: 1

    Because the Iranians are all peaceful and stuff, right?

    As a matter of fact, yes. Iran hasn't invaded another country in over 270 years. (They invaded India and sacked Delhi in 1738-9). Compare that with the United States: http://academic.evergreen.edu/...
    A more comprehensive list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

    Tony.

    --
    -- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
  71. And Don't Forget ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... an unmanned drone will also have the ability to perform maneuvers that a manned aircraft would find to be impossible. The pilot sitting within the aircraft has physical limitations. If you take that pilot and put them miles away rather than in the aircraft, you open up a large number of possibilities. Instead of needing to work around the physical restraints of the squishy human inside, you only need worry about the physical restraints of the aircraft itself.

  72. History ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Please check the history books before violently disagreeing"

    I know that I always read history books if I'm going to know whether or not a nation is peaceable. That's why I keep clear of Italy ... that Rome was the opposite of peaceful, so I assume that it must be the same today. And Japan? Hell no, that country is a war making MACHINE!

    In all seriousness, the last 5-10 years is going to tell you a lot more about a country's intentions than it's history books. As a historian, I might be interested in the trends of a country over time. As someone wondering if a country is going to make war, I should probably lend more credence to what they are doing now, with simply an understanding of their history.

  73. Maybe they're making a movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hollywood build fake ships all the time.

  74. Maybe it's a target? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    The year before the US, under Bush and Cheney and Rummy, invaded and conquered Iraq (for no particulatly good reason), there was a naval exercise imitating the invasion.. Gen. Shinsecki, on the defending forces, blew up a number of ships, including, IIRC, an aircraft carrier, by sending small fishing vessels, much harder-to-hit targets than capital ships, in packed with HE.

    My personal bet on this imitation Nimitz is that it's a target, to work out similarly effective attacks.

    I know, no fun, nothing to laugh at....

                          mark

  75. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    Iran hasn't invaded another country in over 270 years.

    If embassies are sovereign territory of the other country, then the takeover of ours in 1979 refutes your point. But that's pedantry. I'll even give you the wars with Iraq, where the U.S. supported Saddam, in the 70s & 80s, as they hardly constituted 'invasion' at any point.
    You know, if it wasn't for Iran's post-Khomeni record for sponsoring terrorism (Hezbollah et al.), you point might be more than a thought-free equivalency.

    Exit question: Howard Zinn; systematic prevaricator, or all-around lying sack?

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  76. Military use? by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    Maybe they want to use it for launching and landing 3/4 scale radio control toys? I mean really, there must be close to a hundred million youtubing video-kings who could create a better video of the sinking of an aircraft carrier than the Iranians would get from blowing this up. But it would make a good flyby target if you had an air force that needed to practice attacking a carrier, but again, unless it shoots back you'd be better off with a good video game. But for now, I'll watch this space.

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
  77. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by Ottawakismet · · Score: 1

    Iran actually spends less on their military (as a share of GDP) then their neighbours (and obviously) more than the USA, They never start wars. They had indigenous democracy not imposed on them by anyone (until the CIA overthrew the democratic government and put in a monarchy) Iran has been invaded by the USSR, Britain, and most recently Iraq. They may make a lot of noise about Israel, but its just posturing. Iran has never participated in any wars with Israel. When Iran wants to hurt another country, they support their dissidents with money and weapons, they have not gone to war. They support Hezbollah, Assad, and Iraqi Shiites, (and other Shiites) but they are remarkable peaceful in a dangerous neighbourhood. Their nuclear enrichment program was very suspect, but its likely to go the way of Taiwans, Swedens, Argentina's or Iraq's, not: Pakistan or DPRK

  78. Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1
    Since WWII, there has been a division of labor, with the combination of being the world currency and providing a military pax Americana driving down military expenditures elsewhere.

    They may make a lot of noise about Israel, but its just posturing. Iran has never participated [directly] in any wars with Israel.

    Fixed that for you.
    Here is news: the rest of the region (Sunni) tolerated Saddam because he kept the pesky Shiites at bay.
    9/11 was a pretext, given the uncertainty of what would happen after Saddam, for the Great Satan to be allowed in to effect regime change. We had proven reliability in Gulf War I, recall.
    In summary, the Iranians may not be much worse than the rest of the region, but angels they ain't.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear