Mars is pretty hostile (much like you). Not enough atmosphere, not enough rad-shielding, not enough light to grow food, not enough gravity. You'd pretty much have to build underground, at which point, why do that on Mars? When space travel gets cheap enough, the answer will be "why not - the land's available", but that's the distant fuure.
Venusian cloud cities make a lot of sense, however. While you'd need airlocks and suits, you can scavenge breathable atmosphere from Venus' atmosphere, and there's not much pressure difference to worry about. Gravity, light, and rad-shielding are all fine. The only systemic danger is getting caught up in turbulence, otherwise it's probably easier than Antarctica, since you'd have more normal natural light for crops.
Yes, that has been US air power doctrine since around the Korean War. The problem is that the US has not actually fought in a war since where this has been true. ROE require confirmation requirements that prohibit BVR engagement.
Not sure where you're getting that. F-15s had BFR kills in Desert Storm. In any case, the hotter the war, the less restrictive the ROE.
Generally, a missile fired from beyond visual range will depend on the aircraft's (or launcher's) radar to get it close to the target, where terminal guidance will usually be sensors built into the missile itself.
For shorter range missiles, pretty much every combination is out there, but it's common to use the aircraft's radar for initial targeting in more sophisticated missiles.
Maybe It can get lock-on at some range, depending on how the F-22 maneuvers, but what range? From the ideal angle, it won't get that lock on, but it's hard to know how far the F-22 falls from that ideal as it presents various profiles.
A truck with a hot radar is an easy target, of course. Maybe the S-400 can shoot down the cruise missiles coming for it, but how many appropriate missiles will it carry. Maybe Morpheus can protect it, if the Russians ever actually deploy that system.
There hasn't been a dogfight in like 50 years. Dude.
You seem confused about the definition of "dogfight". Firing missiles at max range is sort of the opposite of a dogfight. Just so you know.
Do you seriously foresee WWIII breaking out soon?
Large powers haven't fought in a while. But the world isn't stable, and America's military dominance is fading fast. Won't be long before the end of the Pax Americana. We'll see large powers at it again one day, unless human nature magically changes (and heck, if human nature magically changes, maybe communism would work). I could certainly see us fighting Russia or China in a proxy fight in my lifetime, much like Vietnam was. US vs Iran is a joke, but Iran armed with a large gift of Russian equipment? Less funny.
Lots of ways the world can change. Best not to over-optimize on fighting the last war.
That article is pretty bad - a lot of hype and self-contradiction.
What matters today, where the F-22 dominates, is the range you can get missile lock-on vs your opponent (assuming you have modern performance in general). The F-22 is excellent in that narrow aspect of stealth - it can get missiles off and turn away before anything else can get close enough to lunch missiles. It's very very good at that one goal.
The Su-35 is a more-modern F-15 or F/A-18 with better performance. It doesn't outperform the F-22, and it's not in the same league in the ratio of sensor quality to sensor profile.
It was designed to fight "yesterday's war", while the future is obviously unmanned drones.
Yes, airframes last a long time, but unmanned drones replacing all armed air roles, even all single-pilot planes, is decades away. We can do some fairly minimal stuff now with drones against low-tech opponents with no EW capability at all, and even then it's not much cheaper.
There are plenty of problems with the F-35, but we certainly need new manned planes, both fighter and bomber, for at least another generation. The inherent disadvantages to a remote-control plane are quite large, and truly autonomous drones - drones that can decide to engage a new target - aren't coming soon.
The second point is that if since it is a completely standard practice then why is it suddenly such an outrage?
Do you see anyone outraged? I wish there were some actual outrage over how the US system works, but no one seems to care any more.
The reality is that other countries have complex politics and motives of their own, and that sometimes causes them to do things like give some support to ISIS
And that makes them evil fuckers who need a regime change. ISIS is as evil as they come. There can be no excuse.
They're not just a bunch of "evil fuckers" who must be avoided by the plague.
Do you have no moral compass at all? You're OK with slavery? You're OK with all the evil that is ISIS, the mass murder, the wholesale child raping just fine with you?
Fuck man, you sound like an extreme sociopath with that noise.
Her "charity" that gives 6% to charity? You can't possibly be so naÃve as to actually believe the Clinton foundation is anything but money laundering for bribes, can you? Willful blindness can ignore anything, I guess, but this seems a bit extreme. This is how US politics works today.
Qatar gave her millions, and as secstate she concealed their ISIS funding. Just an example - everything she did in office was pay for play.
Ah, so those are the important issues in the election then, not immigration and the economy? Admittedly, they're more entertaining, which is all the media cares about.
OK, you lost me. Quantum, the Brazilian prog rock band? Quantum the album by Planet X? I actually checked to see if more of Dream Theater had played on that album.
She has made tens of millions from selling influence. Normal, even mediocre, by the standards of some countries, but an overachiever by US standards. OK, maybe inflation-adjusted there was worse during the robber baron years. Maybe.
What's the damning stuff? The hint that big donations lead to influence with the candidate? That's completely standard politics, if you want to be sure you can meet with a politician donate a pile of cash to them, the only difference here is the donations went to a charity rather than the candidate's campaign fund.
This is exactly my point. We should be outraged at the corruption - buying influence for money? Never in our country! But instead you ask "What's the damning stuff?"
The answer, BTW, it that it's very illegal to sell influence to foreign powers. Could I get a rousing "meh" from the crowd?
And by "support", you mean arranged a meeting and/or Clinton Foundation event in Qatar,
As SecState, she concealed Qatar's monetary support for ISIS (not just Qatar, of course), according to the email dump. Quid for tat. As if anyone still cares.
Heck, even the Clinton Foundation event is right up there with throwing a "hooray for slavery" party while wearing the Confederate flag, but no one cares because those evil fuckers are over there, nothing to do with us.
Alternatively, Trump has run a campaign based on the hard truths that AmiMoJo will spend his whole life denying. But you're a Brit, right? So while each side thinks the other will send the unpeople to the Happy Fun Camps, you're safe either way.
Hmm, you may have a point there. I can believe that the average Apple consumer reacts to their Apple product breaking in some minor-but-still-usable way by buying a new Apple product. It would explain a lot.
The history of the band Yes is a much better example these days. What happens if you replace band members one by one until none of the original band members remain? And their music sounds nothing like the original (but gradually evolved to the new sound, as most bands do)? And the original band members form a new band? OK, now what if both bands do a joint tour, effectively forming one big band again?
It won't be a huge problem, because it's just a mountain of evidence that Hillary is the most corrupt politician in US history. No one cares. The general acceptance that pay-for-play is "just how the government works now" makes everything a non-scandal.
There's some pretty damning stuff about the Clinton Foundation in those emails (the crime Hillary was hiding by the felonies she committed with the server). No one cares, of course, because we're all struggling under the weight of corruption fatigue. The smoking gun that Hillary took millions to support the likes of Qatar (the last bastion of mass slavery in the modern world, with ISIS-funding government - very evil fuckers) is just a big "meh".
We expect all the politicians to be corrupt. So Hillary is the most corrupt politician in US history? Exceeds expectations - let's promote her! Even the right has no fucks left to give at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
msmash vs smash? Is this a couple's fight?
Mars is pretty hostile (much like you). Not enough atmosphere, not enough rad-shielding, not enough light to grow food, not enough gravity. You'd pretty much have to build underground, at which point, why do that on Mars? When space travel gets cheap enough, the answer will be "why not - the land's available", but that's the distant fuure.
Venusian cloud cities make a lot of sense, however. While you'd need airlocks and suits, you can scavenge breathable atmosphere from Venus' atmosphere, and there's not much pressure difference to worry about. Gravity, light, and rad-shielding are all fine. The only systemic danger is getting caught up in turbulence, otherwise it's probably easier than Antarctica, since you'd have more normal natural light for crops.
All my internets to you, good sir.
Yes, that has been US air power doctrine since around the Korean War. The problem is that the US has not actually fought in a war since where this has been true.
ROE require confirmation requirements that prohibit BVR engagement.
Not sure where you're getting that. F-15s had BFR kills in Desert Storm. In any case, the hotter the war, the less restrictive the ROE.
Generally, a missile fired from beyond visual range will depend on the aircraft's (or launcher's) radar to get it close to the target, where terminal guidance will usually be sensors built into the missile itself.
For shorter range missiles, pretty much every combination is out there, but it's common to use the aircraft's radar for initial targeting in more sophisticated missiles.
"What if they gave a war and nobody came?" asks the hippie.
"What if they gave a war and only one side came?" asks the realist.
Maybe It can get lock-on at some range, depending on how the F-22 maneuvers, but what range? From the ideal angle, it won't get that lock on, but it's hard to know how far the F-22 falls from that ideal as it presents various profiles.
A truck with a hot radar is an easy target, of course. Maybe the S-400 can shoot down the cruise missiles coming for it, but how many appropriate missiles will it carry. Maybe Morpheus can protect it, if the Russians ever actually deploy that system.
There hasn't been a dogfight in like 50 years. Dude.
You seem confused about the definition of "dogfight". Firing missiles at max range is sort of the opposite of a dogfight. Just so you know.
Do you seriously foresee WWIII breaking out soon?
Large powers haven't fought in a while. But the world isn't stable, and America's military dominance is fading fast. Won't be long before the end of the Pax Americana. We'll see large powers at it again one day, unless human nature magically changes (and heck, if human nature magically changes, maybe communism would work). I could certainly see us fighting Russia or China in a proxy fight in my lifetime, much like Vietnam was. US vs Iran is a joke, but Iran armed with a large gift of Russian equipment? Less funny.
Lots of ways the world can change. Best not to over-optimize on fighting the last war.
Yes, you've accurately described the last war. Funny old world though: it keeps changing.
That article is pretty bad - a lot of hype and self-contradiction.
What matters today, where the F-22 dominates, is the range you can get missile lock-on vs your opponent (assuming you have modern performance in general). The F-22 is excellent in that narrow aspect of stealth - it can get missiles off and turn away before anything else can get close enough to lunch missiles. It's very very good at that one goal.
The Su-35 is a more-modern F-15 or F/A-18 with better performance. It doesn't outperform the F-22, and it's not in the same league in the ratio of sensor quality to sensor profile.
It was designed to fight "yesterday's war", while the future is obviously unmanned drones.
Yes, airframes last a long time, but unmanned drones replacing all armed air roles, even all single-pilot planes, is decades away. We can do some fairly minimal stuff now with drones against low-tech opponents with no EW capability at all, and even then it's not much cheaper.
There are plenty of problems with the F-35, but we certainly need new manned planes, both fighter and bomber, for at least another generation. The inherent disadvantages to a remote-control plane are quite large, and truly autonomous drones - drones that can decide to engage a new target - aren't coming soon.
The second point is that if since it is a completely standard practice then why is it suddenly such an outrage?
Do you see anyone outraged? I wish there were some actual outrage over how the US system works, but no one seems to care any more.
The reality is that other countries have complex politics and motives of their own, and that sometimes causes them to do things like give some support to ISIS
And that makes them evil fuckers who need a regime change. ISIS is as evil as they come. There can be no excuse.
They're not just a bunch of "evil fuckers" who must be avoided by the plague.
Do you have no moral compass at all? You're OK with slavery? You're OK with all the evil that is ISIS, the mass murder, the wholesale child raping just fine with you?
Fuck man, you sound like an extreme sociopath with that noise.
Her "charity" that gives 6% to charity? You can't possibly be so naÃve as to actually believe the Clinton foundation is anything but money laundering for bribes, can you? Willful blindness can ignore anything, I guess, but this seems a bit extreme. This is how US politics works today.
Qatar gave her millions, and as secstate she concealed their ISIS funding. Just an example - everything she did in office was pay for play.
Ah, so those are the important issues in the election then, not immigration and the economy? Admittedly, they're more entertaining, which is all the media cares about.
OK, you lost me. Quantum, the Brazilian prog rock band? Quantum the album by Planet X? I actually checked to see if more of Dream Theater had played on that album.
Shouldn't we be spilling over with 40 years of outrage? Shouldn't the outrage grow every year as the scale of the corruption grows?
She has made tens of millions from selling influence. Normal, even mediocre, by the standards of some countries, but an overachiever by US standards. OK, maybe inflation-adjusted there was worse during the robber baron years. Maybe.
What's the damning stuff? The hint that big donations lead to influence with the candidate? That's completely standard politics, if you want to be sure you can meet with a politician donate a pile of cash to them, the only difference here is the donations went to a charity rather than the candidate's campaign fund.
This is exactly my point. We should be outraged at the corruption - buying influence for money? Never in our country! But instead you ask "What's the damning stuff?"
The answer, BTW, it that it's very illegal to sell influence to foreign powers. Could I get a rousing "meh" from the crowd?
And by "support", you mean arranged a meeting and/or Clinton Foundation event in Qatar,
As SecState, she concealed Qatar's monetary support for ISIS (not just Qatar, of course), according to the email dump. Quid for tat. As if anyone still cares.
Heck, even the Clinton Foundation event is right up there with throwing a "hooray for slavery" party while wearing the Confederate flag, but no one cares because those evil fuckers are over there, nothing to do with us.
Alternatively, Trump has run a campaign based on the hard truths that AmiMoJo will spend his whole life denying. But you're a Brit, right? So while each side thinks the other will send the unpeople to the Happy Fun Camps, you're safe either way.
/thread
Hmm, you may have a point there. I can believe that the average Apple consumer reacts to their Apple product breaking in some minor-but-still-usable way by buying a new Apple product. It would explain a lot.
A failwhale of tweets.
Theseus's ship?
The history of the band Yes is a much better example these days. What happens if you replace band members one by one until none of the original band members remain? And their music sounds nothing like the original (but gradually evolved to the new sound, as most bands do)? And the original band members form a new band? OK, now what if both bands do a joint tour, effectively forming one big band again?
It won't be a huge problem, because it's just a mountain of evidence that Hillary is the most corrupt politician in US history. No one cares. The general acceptance that pay-for-play is "just how the government works now" makes everything a non-scandal.
There's some pretty damning stuff about the Clinton Foundation in those emails (the crime Hillary was hiding by the felonies she committed with the server). No one cares, of course, because we're all struggling under the weight of corruption fatigue. The smoking gun that Hillary took millions to support the likes of Qatar (the last bastion of mass slavery in the modern world, with ISIS-funding government - very evil fuckers) is just a big "meh".
We expect all the politicians to be corrupt. So Hillary is the most corrupt politician in US history? Exceeds expectations - let's promote her! Even the right has no fucks left to give at this point.